2—  -  *-?  .  t 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

* 

PRINCETON.  N.  J. 


Presented  by 


CAlaVo 


or, 


Division .  JJC 1 9o4- 

.TM3 


Section 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/waritscausesconsOOpage 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES, 
CONSEQUENCES  AND  CURE 

KIRBY  PAGE 


WAR 


ITS 


CAUSES,  CONSEQUENCES 
AND  CURE  /sP 


BY 


KIRBY  PAGE 


Author  of  “the  sword  or  the  cross,”  etc . 

Editor ,  “CHRISTIANITY  AND  ECONOMIC  PROBLEMS 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 

HARRY  EMERSON  FOSD1CK 


NEW 


YORK 


GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT,  19*3, 

BY  GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


WAR 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


INTRODUCTION 

By  Harry  Emerson  Fosdick 

Mr.  Page  has  written  for  us  one  of  the  most 
challenging  books  that  has  appeared  for  many 
a  year.  Whether  the  reader  agree  with  all  his 
opinions  or  not,  there  is  no  better  opportunity 
than  this  book  affords  for  the  Christians  of 
America  to  face  squarely  the  most  crucial  social 
issue  of  our  day.  Even  though  a  man  were  to 
differ  violently  with  Mr.  Page,  he  would  better 
read  this  book.  He  will  find  here  a  way  of 
thinking  that  is  disturbing  the  conscience  and 
challenging  the  devotion  of  many  of  the  best 
characters  in  the  younger  generation. 

This  warm  commendation  does  not  mean  that 
I  myself  agree  with  everything  that  Mr.  Page 
says.  Entire  agreement  of  that  kind  is  rare, 
even  when  a  man  reads  again  books  which  he 
himself  has  written,  much  more  rare  when  one  in¬ 
dependent  mind  reads  what  another  has  written. 
I  probably  should  qualify,  more  than  Mr.  Page 


¥1 


INTRODUCTION 


would,  the  absolutist  pledge  to  which  in  his  last 
chapter  he  calls  the  churches.  But  this  I  do  see 
clearly:  that  war  is  the  most  colossal  and  ruinous 
social  sin  that  afflicts  mankind  today;  that  it  is 
utterly  and  irremediably  unchristian;  that  how¬ 
ever  armed  conflict  in  times  past  may  have  served 
an  evolutionary  purpose  it  has  now  become  not 
only  futile  but  suicidal,  and  that  recognition  of 
this  fact  is  necessary  to  the  continuance  of  civili¬ 
zation;  that  the  war  system  means  everything 
which  Jesus  did  not  mean  and  means  nothing 
that  he  did  mean;  and  that  it  is  a  more  blatant 
denial  of  every  Christian  doctrine  about  God  and 
man  than  all  the  theoretical  atheists  on  earth 
ever  could  devise.  What  I  do  see  is  that  the 
quarrels  between  fundamentalists  and  liberals, 
high  churchmen,  broad  churchmen,  and  low 
churchmen,  are  tithing,  mint,  anise,  and  cummin 
if  the  church  does  not  deal  with  this  supreme 
moral  issue  of  our  time :  Christ  against  war. 

For  myself,  while  I  recognize  as  more  weighty 
than  Mr.  Page  feels  it  to  be,  the  difference  be¬ 
tween  calling  war  wicked,  futile,  unchristian  and 
unnecessary,  and  saying  that  on  the  stroke  of 
the  clock  any  nation  can  forthwith  close  its  war 


INTRODUCTION 


vu 


office,  scrap  its  army  and  navy,  and  at  once  adopt 
an  absolutely  pacifist  policy,  I  must  say  that  the 
more  I  consider  war,  its  sources,  methods,  and 
results,  its  debasing  welter  of  lies  and  brutality, 
its  unspeakable  horror  while  it  is  here  and  its 
utter  futility  in  the  end  to  achieve  any  good  thing 
that  mankind  could  wish,  the  more  difficult  I  find 
it  to  imagine  any  situation  in  which  I  shall  feel 
justified  in  sanctioning  or  participating  in  an¬ 
other  war. 

When  the  Great  War  broke,  the  churches  were 
unprepared  to  take  a  well-considered  Christian 
attitude.  We,  too,  had  been  hypnotized  by 
nationalism,  had  taken  patriotism  at  its  current 
values  and  had  understood  it  in  its  ordinary 
meanings.  We,  too,  had  regarded  as  a  sacred 
duty  the  loyal  support  of  the  country’s  army  and 
navy  in  almost  any  task  to  which  the  government 
might  put  them.  We,  too,  vaguely  looking  for¬ 
ward  to  a  warless  world,  sometime,  somewhere, 
nevertheless  had  looked  on  war  as  an  easily 
imaginable,  highly  probable  necessity  of  national 
action.  In  a  word,  behind  the  thin  disguise  of 
pious  hopes  for  a  day  of  peace  and  brotherhood, 
we  had  shared  those  ordinary  social  attitudes 


Vlll 


INTRODUCTION 


which  made  war  seem  at  times  an  imperious  call 
to  duty,  a  summons  to  self-sacrifice,  a  solemn 
challenge  to  devotion  and,  if  need  be,  martyrdom. 

When,  therefore,  the  War  broke  and  the  na¬ 
tions,  acting  on  the  old  premises,  did  the  inevi¬ 
table  thing  which  the  old  premises  involved,  we 
found  ourselves,  as  Christians,  powerless  to  lift 
effective  protest  against  the  oncoming  perdition. 
We  had  made  ourselves  part  and  parcel  of  social 
attitudes,  from  whose  inevitable  consequence  we 
felt  it  immoral  to  withdraw.  We  had  consented 
to  the  necessity  of  war  and  the  righteousness  of 
war  too  long  to  be  conscience-clear  in  refusing  to 
bear  the  brunt  of  it  when  it  came. 

For  my  part,  I  never  will  be  caught  that  way 
again.  I  hope  the  churches  never  will  be  caught 
that  way.  If,  however,  when  the  next  crisis 
comes,  we  are  going  to  protest  effectively  against 
war,  we  must  win  the  right  to  make  that  protest 
and  we  must  win  it  now.  Today  we  must  make 
unmistakably  clear  our  position  against  war, 
against  competitive  preparation  for  war,  against 
reliance  on  war.  We  must  make  clear  our  certain 
conviction  that,  save  for  our  corporate  senseless¬ 
ness,  war  in  the  modern  world  is  as  needless  as 


INTRODUCTION 


IX 


it  is  suicidal,  that  only  the  folly  and  selfishness 
of  diplomats  and  the  stupid  willingness  of  the 
people  to  be  led  like  beasts  to  the  shambles,  make 
it  seem  necessary.  Against  foolish  chauvinism, 
competitive  armaments,  secret  diplomacy,  im¬ 
perialistic  experiments,  against  endeavors  to  play 
lone  hands,  when,  by  cooperation,  international 
agencies  could  be  set  up  to  solve  the  problems 
which  war  never  solves  but  only  makes  the  worse, 
we  now  must  lift  our  protest  and  launch  our 
crusade. 

When,  then,  a  new  war  threatens,  sprung  from 
insensate  refusal  to  substitute  reason  for  violence, 
we  can  wash  our  hands  of  complicity  in  the  foul 
business.  We  can  tell  the  diplomats  who  lead 
us  to  it  that  we  will  not  follow  them.  We  can 
refuse  to  hold  our  consciences  at  the  beck  and 
call  of  any  govermnent  that  happens  to  be  in  the 
saddle.  We  can  put  Christ  above  Caesar  and 
dare  Caesar  to  do  his  worst  to  us  while  we  follow 
Christ. 

For  my  part  I  propose  to  win  the  right  to  do 
that.  I  hope  that  the  outlawry  of  war  and  the 
substitution  of  law  for  violence  may  make  it  un¬ 
necessary  to  do  that.  I  hope  that,  by  facing  the 


X 


INTRODUCTION 


issue  now,  we  may  save  civilization  from  the 
death-shock  of  another  convulsion  of  brutal  car¬ 
nage.  But  at  any  rate,  I  never  expect  to  bless 
another  war. 

Let  a  man  read  this  book  with  an  independent 
mind.  No  one  would  wish  that  more  than  Mr. 
Page  himself.  But  let  him  not  dodge  its  chal¬ 
lenge.  Mr.  Page  is  engaged  here  in  the  high 
business  of  taking  Jesus  in  earnest,  and  a  more 
necessary  Christian  procedure  just  now;  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  imagine. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I :  WHY  WAS  THE  WORLD  WAR  FOUGHT? . .  15 

(1)  Economic  Imperialism .  21 

(2)  Militarism .  27 

(3)  Alliances .  43 

(4)  Secret  Diplomacy .  48 

(5)  Fear .  62 

(6)  Immediate  Causes .  66 

II:  WHAT  DID  THE  WORLD  WAR  ACCOM¬ 
PLISH  ? .  76 

(1)  Allied  Gains  of  the  War .  77 

(2)  Losses  in  Life .  82 

(3)  Material  Losses  of  the  War .  90 

(4)  Moral  Losses  of  the  War .  97 

(5)  Religious  Losses  of  the  War .  105 

(6)  Effects  upon  the  Future .  109 

(7)  Summary .  115 

III:  HOW  CAN  FURTHER  WARS  BE  PRE¬ 
VENTED? .  117 

(1)  Abandonment  of  Economic  Imperialism.  118 

(2)  Disarmament .  130 

(3)  Abolition  of  Secret  Diplomacy .  134 


XJ 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAFTBB  PAGE 

(4)  Erection  of  International  Processes  of 

Justice .  136 

(a)  The  Outlawry  of  War .  136 

(b)  The  World  Court .  139 

(c)  The  League  of  Nations .  143 

(5)  Creation  of  an  International  Mind.  .  .  157 

IV:  WHAT  SHALL  THE  CHURCHES  DO  ABOUT 
WAR? .  162 

INDEX .  209 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES, 
CONSEQUENCES  AND  CURE 


Chapter  I 


WHY  WAS  THE  WORLD  WAR 

FOUGHT? 

The  ideal  aims  of  the  Allies  in  the  World  War 
were  clearly  proclaimed  by  President  Wilson  in 
his  reply  to  the  peace  proposals  of  the  Pope,  in 
these  memorable  words : 

“The  object  of  this  war  is  to  deliver  the  free 
peoples  of  the  world  from  the  menace  and  actual 
power  of  a  vast  military  establishment  controlled 
by  an  irresponsible  Government  which,  having 
secretly  planned  to  dominate  the  world,  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  carry  the  plan  out  without  regard  either 
to  the  sacred  obligations  of  treaty  or  the  long- 
established  practices  and  long-cherished  prin¬ 
ciples  of  international  action  and  honor;  which 
chose  its  own  time  for  the  war;  delivered  its  blow 
fiercely  and  suddenly;  stopped  at  no  barrier, 
either  of  law  or  of  mercy;  swept  a  whole  con¬ 
tinent  within  the  tide  of  blood.” 


[15] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


The  Treaty  of  Versailles  contains  a  section  in 
which  Germany  is  compelled  to  acknowledge  sole 
responsibility  for  the  war.  On  March  3,  1921, 
Mr.  Lloyd  George  said:  “For  the  Allies,  German 
responsibility  for  the  war  is  fundamental.  It  is 
the  basis  upon  which  the  structure  of  the  Treaty 
of  Versailles  has  been  erected,  and  if  that  ac¬ 
knowledgement  is  repudiated  or  abandoned,  the 
Treaty  is  destroyed.” 

This  idea  of  the  sole  guilt  of  Germany  was 
throughout  the  war  almost  universally  accepted 
in  Allied  countries.  The  war  was  regarded  as  a 
conflict  between  barbarism  and  civilization,  be¬ 
tween  darkness  and  light,  between  wrong  and 
right.  The  faults  of  the  Allied  nations  were 
ignored  or  forgotten;  those  of  Germany  were 
emphasized  in  every  conceivable  way.  To  ex¬ 
press  even  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  the  exclu¬ 
sive  guilt  of  Germany  was  considered  highly 
unpatriotic. 

Multitudes  of  people  still  believe  that  Ger¬ 
many  was  solely  responsible  for  the  war.  Other 
millions  are  unalterably  convinced  of  the  guilt  of 
Germany,  however  many  doubts  they  may  have 

[16] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


concerning  the  question  as  to  whether  she  alone 
was  guilty.  It  is  in  this  latter  group  that  the 
present  writer  finds  himself.  The  evidence  of 
the  guilt  of  the  German  leaders  seems  to  be  so 
complete  and  has  been  cited  so  frequently  that 
it  is  assumed  throughout  this  discussion . 

It  would,  of  course,  be  foolish  to  believe  all  the 
reports  against  the  Germans  which  were  circu¬ 
lated  during  the  war.  Many  of  the  worst  of 
these  are  now  known  to  have  been  without  foun¬ 
dation.  In  this  connection  ex-Premier  Nitti  of 
Italy  says:  “All  the  world  believed  for  a  time 
that  the  habitual  exercise  of  the  Germans  in  Bel¬ 
gium  was  to  cut  off  the  hands  of  babies.  There 
was  no  truth  in  the  story,  and  there  are  no  more 
handless  babies  in  Belgium  than  there  are  in 
England  or  in  Germany.  The  news  was  false, 
but  the  most  reputable  papers  published  it ;  tele¬ 
graphic  agencies  spread  it  broadcast,  and  thus 
nourished  the  mistrust  of  the  world.  .  .  .  Lloyd 
George  .  .  .  sent  me  word  that  he  had  not  been 
able  to  trace  a  single  case  of  a  child’s  hands  hav¬ 
ing  been  cut  off,  in  all  Belgium.  In  spite  of  this, 

[17] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


the  stupid  and  wicked  lie  continues  to  be  spread 
about!”1 

But  after  due  allowance  has  been  made  for 
gross  exaggeration  and  false  propaganda,  suffi¬ 
cient  evidence  remains  to  make  impossible  any 
doubt  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  Germans.  To  say,  as 
does  a  recent  writer,  that  “the  German  Govern¬ 
ment’s  share  of  guilt  in  the  matter  is  extremely 
small”  is  to  ignore  the  facts  in  the  case. 

It  is  one  thing  to  say  that  Germany  is  guilty, 
it  is  quite  another  thing  to  say  that  she  alone  is 
guilty.  Concerning  this  latter  point  we  can 
secure  light  from  numerous  quarters.  What 
were  the  leaders  of  the  Allied  nations  saying  and 
doing  during  the  decades  prior  to  the  outbreak 
of  the  war  ?  What  were  these  spokesmen  secretly 
saying  and  doing  during  the  war?  What  were 
they  secretly  saying  and  doing  during  the  Peace 
Conference?  What  confessions  have  they  made 
during  recent  months?  To  what  extent  do  their 
private  words  and  deeds  agree  with  their  public 
statements?  Was  there  a  serious  discrepancy 
between  the  actual  purposes  of  the  Allied  leaders 


1  “The  Decadence  of  Europe,”  p.  138,  XXVIII. 

[18] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


and  the  motives  of  the  rank  and  file  of  people 
who  supported  the  war  in  these  lands  ? 

Recent  diplomatic  disclosures  have  shed  light 
upon  these  questions.  Numerous  Belgian  secret 
papers  were  published  during  the  German  occu¬ 
pation.  After  the  downfall  of  the  old  Russian 
Government,  the  Bolsheviks  exposed  to  public 
gaze  a  number  of  secret  treaties  and  hundreds  of 
diplomatic  documents.  Following  the  overthrow 
of  the  old  Governments  in  Germany  and  in  Aus¬ 
tria,  numerous  important  disclosures  were  made. 
Unfortunately,  the  full  facts  contained  in  the 
archives  of  Paris,  London  and  Rome  are  not  yet 
available.  Numerous  Allied  leaders  have,  how¬ 
ever,  recently  published  memoirs  which  contain 
important  new  material.  From  the  sources  now 
available  we  are  in  a  much  better  position  to  de¬ 
termine  whether  or  not  the  Allied  Governments 
must  assume  heavy  responsibility  for  the  war,  or 
whether  Germany  alone  was  guilty. 

President  Poincare  and  Mr.  Asquith  have  re¬ 
cently  published  volumes  dealing  with  the  origin 
of  the  war.  They  present  an  abundance  of  evi¬ 
dence  to  substantiate  their  contention  that  the 


[19] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


German  leaders  cannot  be  relieved  of  very  heavy 
responsibility  for  starting  the  war.  These  two 
books  have  intensified  the  widespread  belief  in 
Allied  countries  that  Germany  alone  was  guilty. 

A  careful  analysis  of  these  books,  however, 
reveals  conspicuous  omissions.  They  deal  at 
great  length  with  the  guilt  of  the  Germans,  and 
they  are  able  to  draw  up  a  very  heavy  indictment. 
But  both  President  Poincare  and  Mr.  Asquith 
ignore  entirely  or  pass  over  lightly  the  guilt  of 
their  own  countries.  President  Poincare  goes  so 
far  as  to  say:  “However  far  back  one  may  go  in 
the  policy  that  France  has  followed  since  1870, 
however  closely  one  may  follow  it  down  to  the 
month  of  August,  1914,  there  will  be  found  noth¬ 
ing,  absolutely  nothing,  that — I  will  not  say  that 
would  enable  one  to  incriminate  France — would 
justify  one  in  reproaching  her  with  even  an  in¬ 
voluntary  fault.”1 

Mr.  Asquith  reproduces  a  quotation  from  a 
speech  which  he  delivered  in  the  House  of  Com¬ 
mons  in  August,  1914:  “If  I  am  asked  what  we 
are  fighting  for,  I  can  reply  in  two  sentences.  In 

1  Esmond  Poincare,  “The  Origins  of  the  War,”  p.  75. 

[20] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


the  first  place,  we  are  fighting  to  fulfil  a  solemn 
international  obligation  .  .  .  secondly,  we  are 
fighting  to  vindicate  the  principle  that  small 
nationalities  are  not  to  be  crushed,  in  defiance  of 
international  good  faith,  by  the  arbitrary  will  of 
a  strong  and  overmastering  Power.”  Mr.  As¬ 
quith  then  says:  “That  was  the  British  casus 
belli.”1 

It  would,  however,  be  superficial  indeed  to  say 
that  these  eminent  pleaders  have  told  the  whole 
story  as  to  why  the  war  was  fought.  They  have 
framed  a  tremendous  indictment  of  Germany 
but  have  shed  almost  no  light  upon  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  Allied  leaders  must  assume  a 
share  of  responsibility  for  starting  the  war.  If 
we  desire  to  discover  the  whole  truth,  we  must 
go  beyond  what  these  men  have  written  and  ex¬ 
plore  such  realms  as : 

(1)  Economic  Imperialism,  (2)  Militarism, 
(3)  Alliances,  (4)  Secret  Diplomacy,  (5)  Fear. 

( 1 )  Economic  Imperialism 

In  one  of  his  addresses  before  the  Institute  of 
Politics  at  Williamstown,  Professor  Viallate,  a 

1  Herbert  Henry  Asquith,  “The  Genesis  of  the  War,”  p.  315. 

[21] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


leading  Italian  economist,  said:  “The  Congress 
of  Berlin  (1878)  closed  a  chapter  of  European 
history.  From  that  date  the  relations  between 
European  nations  were  less  affected  by  questions 
arising  in  Europe  itself  than  by  the  struggle 
carried  on  outside  of  Europe  for  the  possession 
of  colonies  and  markets.  It  was  no  longer  on 
the  Rhine  or  the  Danube,  but  in  Tunis,  in  Egypt, 
in  Nigeria,  in  Manchuria,  that  European  chan¬ 
celleries  found  the  center  of  gravity  of  their 
diplomacy.”1 

During  the  next  thirty-five  years  all  the  major 
European  powers  were  engaged  in  a  bitter 
rivalry  for  colonies,  spheres  of  influence,  raw 
materials,  markets  and  trade  routes.  Almost  the 
entire  African  continent  and  large  territories  in 
Asia  and  the  various  islands  were  partitioned 
between  them. 

In  1875  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  total  area 
of  Africa  was  controlled  by  European  powers. 
But  the  policy  of  partitioning  was  carried  out  at 
such  a  rapid  rate  that  by  1912  only  two  small 
areas  were  still  under  native  control.  The  follow- 

1  Achille  Viallate,  “Economic  Imperialism  and  International 
.Relations  During  the  Last  Fifty  Years,”  p.  19 

[22] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


ing  table  shows  which  of  the  nations  were  most 
successful  in  this  scramble  for  new  territory:1 


Square  Miles 


British  Africa . 

Cape  Colony .  276,995 

Natal  and  Zululand .  35,371 

Basutoland .  10 , 293 

Bechuanaland .  225 , 000 

Transvaal  and  Swa¬ 
ziland .  117,732 

Orange  River  Colony  50,392 

Rhodesia .  450,000 

Nyasoland .  43,608 

British  East  Africa .  240 , 000 

Uganda .  125,000 

Zanzibar .  1 , 020 

Somaliland .  68 , 000 

Northern  Nigeria . . .  258 , 000 

Southern  Nigeria. . .  80,000 

Gold  Coast .  82,000 

Sierre  Leone .  34,000 

Gambia .  4,000 

Egypt  and  Sudan.  .  1,600,000 

French  Africa . 

Algeria  and  Sahara .  945 , 000 

Tunisia .  51,000 

Senegal .  74,000 

French  Guinea .  107,000 

Ivory  Coast .  129,000 


Total  Area  in 
Square  Miles 
3,701,411 


4,086,950 


1  “Encyclopedia  Britannica,”  Vol.  I,  p.  351. 


[23] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

Total  Area  in 


Square  Miles 

Square  Miles 

Dahomey . 

Upper  Senegal  and 

40,000 

Niger . 

1,581,000 

French  Congo . 

700,000 

French  Somaliland. 

12,000 

Madagascar . 

227,950 

Morocco . 

German  Africa . 

220,000 

910,150  i 

East  Africa . 

364,000 

Southwest  Africa. . . 

322,450 

Cameroon . 

190,000 

Togoland . 

Belgian  Africa . 

33,700 

900,000 

Congo  State . 

Portuguese  Africa.  , 

900,000 

787,500 

Guinea . 

14,000 

West  Africa . 

480,000 

East  Africa . 

Italian  Africa . . 

293,500 

600,000 

Tripoli . 

400,000 

Eritrea . 

60,000 

Italian  Somaliland . . 
Spanish  Africa . . 

140,000 

£79,800 

Rio  de  Oro . 

Muni  River  Settle- 

70,000 

ment . 

9,800 

Independent  States. 

393,000 

Liberia . 

43,000 

Abyssinia . 

350,000 

[24] 


11,458,811 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


The  rivalry  between  the  European  powers  for 
additional  territory  extended  beyond  the  con¬ 
tinent  of  Africa.  Enormous  territories  in  Asia 
were  also  acquired,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  fol¬ 
lowing  table  which  shows  the  political  control  of 
Asia  at  the  end  of  the  first  decade  of  the  twen¬ 
tieth  century:1 


Square  Miles 


Russian .  6,495,970 

Chinese .  4,299,600 

British .  1 , 998 , 220 

Turkish .  681 , 980 

Dutch .  586 , 980 

French .  247,580 

Japanese .  161,110 

United  States .  114,370 

German .  193 

Other  independent  territories .  2,232,270 


16,818,273 


For  three-quarters  of  a  century  the  great 
powers  of  Europe  have  been  contending  against 
each  other  for  concessions  and  spheres  of  influ¬ 
ence  in  China.  The  story  of  their  success  has 


1  “Encyclopedia  Britannica,”  Vol.  II,  p.  741. 


[25] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


been  told  by  Professor  W.  W.  Willoughby  in  a 
volume  of  594  pages,  entitled  “Foreign  Rights 
and  Interests  in  China.”1  A  summary  of  the 
rights  which  have  been  seized  by  these  foreign 
powers — many  of  them  as  a  result  of  war,  many 
others  by  threats  of  war,  and  still  others  by  trick¬ 
ery — includes  extra-territoriality,  treaty  ports, 
spheres  of  influence,  mining  concessions,  control 
of  railways,  control  of  maritime  customs  and  the 
salt  tax,  war  zones,  the  right  of  stationing  large 
bodies  of  foreign  troops  under  foreign  command 
on  Chinese  soil,  etc. 

The  share  of  each  of  the  foreign  powers  in  this 
spoilation  of  China  is  indicated  below: 

Great  Britain:  Hongkong,  Burma,  Sikkim, 
Weihaiwei,  spheres  of  influence  in  the  Yangtsze 
valley,  Szechuan  and  Tibet. 

Russia:  Amur  region  of  Manchuria,  Western 
Hi  in  Chinese  Turkestan,  Port  Arthur,  Dairen, 
spheres  of  influence  in  Manchuria  and  Mongolia. 

Germany:  Kiaochow,  Tsingtao,  sphere  of  in¬ 
fluence  in  Shantung. 

France:  Annam,  Tongking,  Kuanchowwan, 

1  See  also  M.  J.  Bau,  “The  Foreign  Relations  of  China.” 

[26] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


spheres  of  influence  in  Kwangtung,  Kwangsi, 
and  Yunnan. 

Japan:  Korea,  Formosa,  Liuchiu  Islands,  the 
Pescadores,  Port  Arthur  and  Dairen  taken  from 
Russia,  spheres  of  influence  in  Fukien,  Shantung 
and  other  parts  of  China. 

Concerning  the  significance  of  this  economic 
rivalry,  Professor  Carlton  J.  Hayes,  of  Colum¬ 
bia  University,  says:  “Any  one  who  is  at  all 
familiar  with  the  ‘arenas  of  friction’  in  Egypt, 
in  China,  in  Siam,  in  the  Sudan,  in  Morocco, 
in  Persia,  in  the  Ottoman  Empire,  and  in  the 
Balkans  would  be  in  possession  of  a  valuable 
clew  to  a  significant  cause  of  every  war  of  the 
twentieth  century,  particularly  to  the  chief  cause 
of  the  Great  War.”1 

(2)  Militarism, 

The  full  significance  of  the  economic  rivalry 
between  the  European  powers  cannot  be  under¬ 
stood  apart  from  a  realization  of  the  extent  to 
which  all  of  them  relied  upon  armies  and  navies 


X“A  Brief  History  of  the  Great  War,”  p.  2. 


[27] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


in  seeking  to  gain  a  desired  end.  War  was  an 
accepted  institution  and  military  force  or  threats 
of  military  force  were  the  usual  means  of  obtain¬ 
ing  desired  territory.  It  was  no  accident  that 
the  era  of  colonial  expansion  which  began  in  the 
eighties  was  coincident  with  the  era  of  enor¬ 
mously  increased  expenditures  for  armaments. 
All  the  major  powers  were  constantly  preparing 
for  war  and  most  of  them  were  engaged  inter¬ 
mittently  in  warfare. 

The  Bankers  Trust  Company  of  New  York 
City  has  recently  issued  an  elaborate  analysis  of 
the  war  expenditures  of  the  various  countries.1 
This  report  points  out  that  “during  the  four 
decades  which  elapsed  between  the  Franco-Prus- 
sian  war  and  the  great  war,  the  nations  of  Europe 
expended  forty  and  a  half  billion  dollars,  gold, 
upon  their  military  and  naval  establishments; — 
an  average  of  ten  billion  dollars  a  decade,  a 
billion  a  year.”2  The  following  table  is  taken 
from  this  book: 


1  “French  Public  Finance,”  by  Harvey  E.  Fisk,  issued  by  the 
Bankers  Trust  Company,  1922. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1. 

.  [28] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


The  Cost  of  the  “ Armed  Peace”  to  the  Larger 
European  Nations,  1873-1913 
(In  dollars — 000,000  omitted) 


Total  Army  Navy 
Armed  Peace  Expenses  Expenses 


1.  France . .  .V.. . 

$  8,568 

$  6,105 

$  2,463 

2.  Great  Britain*.  r 

8,401 f 

4,373 

-  ^  4,028 

3.  Russia! . 

7,581) 

6,150 

1,431 

4.  Germany . 

7,434 

5,782 

1,652 

5.  Italy . 

3,010 

2,163 

847 

6.  Austria-Hungary 

2,774 

2,478 

296 

Total — 41  years. . . 

$37,768 

$27,051 

$10,717 

*  Deducting  the  cost  of  the  Boer  War,  $1368  millions, 
f  Deducting  the  cost  of  the  war  with  Japan,  $1333  millions. 


That  is  to  say,  during  these  forty-one  years 
France,  Great  Britain  and  Russia  each  spent 
more  upon  its  army  and  navy  than  did  Germany, 
while  in  amounts  expended  upon  the  army  alone 
Germany  ranked  third.  In  naval  expenditures 
Germany  also  ranked  third. 

The  following  table  shows  the  expenditures 
for  armaments  by  the  major  powers  during  the 
years  from  1900  to  1913  :x 


1  “Fortnightly  Review,”  April  1,  1913,  pp.  654,  655.  The  figures 
for  1913  are  taken  from  “The  Problem  of  Armaments,”  by  Arthur 
Guy  Enoch,  p.  186,  with  the  exception  of  Austria-Hungary  which 
are  listed  as  in  1912. 


[29] 


Millions  of  Pounds  Sterling 

Germany  Russia  Great  Britain  France 

Army  Navy  Army  Navy  Army  Navy  Army  Navy 
1900 .  32.8  7.9  35.8  9.6  91.7*  29.5  26.9  14.9 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


GO 

rH 

i> 

GO 

© 

©* 

© 

© 

© 

HP 

HP 

GO 

©t 

©* 

rH 

©i 

©* 

©* 

GO 

GO 

4© 

© 

© 

CO 

© 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

© 

rH 

© 

©* 

©* 

GO 

©> 

© 

H? 

00 

© 

© 

GO 

HP 

© 

GO 

05 

GO 

CO 

© 

^p 

©I 

GO 

HP 

HP 

4© 

© 

© 

HP 

©I 

©* 

©i 

©I 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

GO 

co 

CO 

CO 

4© 

CO 

Hf» 

o 

©I 

i© 

oo 

GO 

Hp 

rH 

©I 

00 

HP 

© 

rH 

CO 

4© 

r— 1 

rH 

40 

CO 

60 

rH 

rH 

©t 

4© 

© 

©* 

HP 

HP 

© 

GO 

GO 

GO 

GO 

GO 

GO 

CO 

GO 

CO 

HP 

Hp 

HP 

HP 

© 

*P 

* 

* 

* 

HP 

i> 

©* 

GO 

CO 

rH 

00 

©I 

HP 

© 

© 

© 

rH 

a* 

05 

CO 

05 

GO 

?> 

*> 

© 

3> 

CO 

00 

05 

CO 

GO 

©* 

©* 

©* 

©* 

©I 

©I 

©I 

©< 

©* 

©* 

© 

4© 

o 

GO 

GO 

co 

©* 

4© 

Hp 

00 

©I 

© 

*> 

©* 

HP 

o 

O 

©* 

©> 

©i 

rH 

© 

© 

© 

©I 

rH 

Hp 

© 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

©* 

rH 

rH 

rH 

05 

©* 

00 

>© 

CO 

© 

»© 

GO 

HP 

HP 

oo 

CO 

i> 

O 

o 

O 

GO 

4© 

©* 

©I 

©* 

GO 

CO 

© 

CO 

CO 

GO 

Hp 

Hp 

hP 

hF 

H? 

*© 

4© 

4© 

4© 

© 

GO 

© 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

©* 

4© 

© 

4© 

GO 

4© 

rH 

© 

HP 

05 

o 

O 

o’ 

rH 

©* 

hF'© 

© 

rH 

©* 

GO 

GO 

HP 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

t-H 

rH 

©* 

©* 

©< 

©I 

©* 

rH 

©* 

05 

40 

o 

GO 

05 

CO 

CO 

hF 

^P 

© 

HP 

HP 

© 

4© 

GO 

GO 

GO 

©I 

Hp 

i> 

© 

rH 

GO 

©* 

© 

CO 

rH 

GO 

GO 

GO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

Hp 

hF 

hF 

hF 

Hp 

Hp 

4© 

4© 

4© 

© 

rH 

© 

rH 

o 

• 

H-» 

© 

© 

© 

rH 

rH 

rH 

©> 

GO 

tF 

4© 

CO 

c- 

GO 

© 

© 

rH 

©I 

GO 

© 

O 

O 

O 

o 

O 

© 

© 

© 

O 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

© 

05 

C5 

05 

05 

05 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

[30] 


Austria-Hungary  Italy  Japan  United  States 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


53*00  GO*OJ>OOCOi>©^©Q*i>fc~© 

. . 

^^^5>HTfiGOCO^^OO»O0COl> 


55s©  tH©3>©*COCO^GOCO©>©^GQ 

^^^^-^©^■^©^©GOOO^GO 
^  CO  0>  CO  GO  CO  GO  CO 


5s*  rH  ©0OGO©*iQiO0D*C©©©i>*O 

§©r?GOGO©^<^©i>j>i>i>oo©ci 


55*©rHG*©CO©*i-»Q*©©*©GOGOi> 

Ib-O^TfiHH^GO^GaOOiOi 


SS*  ‘O  W5^HCOCOCOOiO^HCOS>H 

§  ^  Tfl  Tf<  JLO  UO  uo  o  *o"  O  <©  ©  l>  00  1C 


551©  H00G0©©O<©HCOH00©H 

P©©©OHH(NH^CC©tOCO© 

^  1— I  rlHHrHHHrHHHH(^ 


^©©HHHCO^COiOJ>COO^O© 

§t-h©*©*q*Q*tJ<©*O*COO*Q*«01O«0 


55*©  ©©^©©OOTpOGO^f^OOOO 


©  t>  in  GO  CO  rH  ©  ©  rfi  ©  © 
r— I  rH  r— li-Hr 


©rH©*CO^*O©?>00©©r- I  ©*  CO 

©©©©©©©©©OrHrHrHrH 

©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 

rH  rH  rH  rH  rH  H  H  H  rH  rH  rH  rH  pH  rH 


Total  1900  to  1913  282.5  46.2  193.7  95.0  109.8  88.3  412.3  322.8 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


During  these  fourteen  years  the  rank  of  the 
four  major  European  powers  in  total  expendi¬ 
tures  for  armaments  was  as  follows : 

Millions 
of  Pounds 


Sterling 

1.  Great  Britain .  889.6* 

2.  Russia .  810.2 

3.  Germany .  765.9 

4.  France .  660.4 


*  Not  including  178  millions  of  extraordinary  expenses  because 
of  the  Boer  War.  The  above  figure  includes  an  average  of  28 
millions  for  1900-1903. 

Not  only  were  the  nations  heavily  armed,  they 
were  constantly  thinking  and  talking  in  terms  of 
war.  The  whole  world  is  now  familiar  with  the 
arrogant  war  talk  and  rattling  of  the  sword  by 
the  Prussian  military  leaders.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  produce  further  evidence  on  this  point.  They 
were  not  alone  in  this  practice,  however.  Lord 
Fisher,  First  Sea  Lord  of  the  British  Admiralty, 
was  accustomed  to  express  himself  freely.  In 
1910  he  said:  “If  I  am  in  command  when  war 
breaks  out  I  shall  issue  as  my  orders :  The  essence 
of  war  is  violence.  Moderation  in  war  is  im¬ 
becility.  Hit  first,  hit  hard,  and  hit  anywhere.”1 

1  “Review  of  Reviews,’’  February,  1910. 

[32] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


In  his  Memoirs  published  since  the  war,  Lord 
Fisher  records  a  suggestion  which  he  made  to 
the  King:  “Even  in  1908  Germany  only  had 
four  submarines.  At  that  time,  in  the  above 
letter  I  wrote  to  King  Edward,  I  approached 
His  Majesty,  and  quoted  certain  apposite  say¬ 
ings  of  Mr.  Pitt  about  dealing  with  the  probable 
enemy  before  he  got  too  strong.  It  is  admitted 
that  it  was  not  quite  a  gentlemanly  sort  of  thing 
for  Nelson  to  go  and  destroy  the  Danish  Fleet 
at  Copenhagen  without  notice,  but  da  raison  du 
plus  fort  est  tou jours  la  meilleure.’  Therefore, 
in  view  of  the  known  steadfast  German  purpose, 
as  always  unmitigatedly  set  forth  by  the  German 
High  Authority  that  it  was  Germany’s  set  inten¬ 
tion  to  make  even  England’s  mighty  Navy  hesi¬ 
tate  at  sea,  it  seemed  to  me  simply  a  sagacious 
act  on  England’s  part  to  seize  the  German  Fleet 
when  it  was  so  very  easy  of  accomplishment  in 
the  manner  I  sketched  out  to  His  Majesty,  and 
probably  without  bloodshed.”1 

Lord  Fisher  also  quotes  a  letter  which  he  wrote 
to  Lord  Esher  on  April  25,  1912:  “Perhaps  I 

1  “Memories  and  Records,”  by  Admiral  of  the  Fleet  Lord  Fisher, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  34,  35. 


[33] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


went  a  little  too  far  when  I  said  ( at  The  Hague 
Conference  of  1899)  I  would  boil  the  prisoners 
in  oil  and  murder  the  innocent  in  cold  blood,  etc., 
etc.  .  .  .  but  it’s  quite  silly  not  to  make  war 
damnable  to  the  whole  mass  of  your  enemy’s 
population.  .  .  .  When  war  does  come  ‘Might 
is  Right!’  and  the  Admiralty  will  know  what  to 
do!  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  most  serious  drawback 
not  making  public  to  the  world  beforehand  what 
we  mean  by  war.”1 

In  a  letter  to  a  friend  written  on  April  20, 
1904,  Lord  Fisher  said:  “And  then,  my  dear 
friend,  you  have  the  astounding  audacity  to  say 
to  me,  T  presume  you  only  think  they  (the  sub¬ 
marines)  can  act  on  the  defensive!’  Why,  my 
dear  fellow,  not  take  the  offensive?  Good  Lord! 
If  our  Admiral  is  worth  his  salt,  he  will  tow  his 
submarines  at  18  knots  speed  and  put  them  into 
the  hostile  port  (like  ferrets  after  the  rabbits!) 
before  war  is  officially  declared,  just  as  the  Jap¬ 
anese  acted  before  the  Russian  naval  officers 
knew  that  war  was  declared!”2 

1  “Memories  and  Records,”  by  Admiral  of  the  Fleet  Lord  Fisher, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  209,  210. 

*Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  p.  171. 

[34] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

In  a  famous  address  at  Manchester  in  1912, 
Lord  Roberts,  a  former  Commander-in-Chief  of 
the  British  Army,  warned  his  hearers  that  “Ger¬ 
many  strikes  when  Germany’s  hour  has  struck. 
.  .  .  And,  gentlemen,  it  is  an  excellent  policy. 
It  is,  or  should  be,  the  policy  of  every  nation 
prepared  to  play  a  great  part  in  history 
(cheers).  .  .  .  For  how  was  this  Empire  of 
Britain  founded?  War  founded  this  Empire — 
war  and  conquest !  When  we,  therefore,  masters 
by  war  of  one-third  of  the  habitable  globe,  when 
we  propose  to  Germany  to  disarm,  to  curtail  her 
navy  or  diminish  her  army,  Germany  naturally 
refuses;  and,  pointing,  not  without  justice,  to 
the  road  by  which  England,  sword  in  hand,  has 
climbed  to  her  unmatched  eminence,  declares 
openly,  or  in  the  veiled  language  of  diplomacy, 
that  by  the  same  path,  if  by  no  other,  Germany 
is  determined  also  to  ascend!  Who  amongst  us, 
knowing  the  past  of  this  nation,  and  the  past  of 
all  nations  and  cities  that  have  ever  added  the 
lustre  of  their  name  to  human  annals,  can  accuse 
Germany  or  regard  the  utterance  of  one  of  her 
greatest  chancellors  a  year  and  a  half  ago,  or  of 

[35] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


General  Bernhardi  three  months  ago,  with  any 
feelings  except  those  of  respect?”1 

On  February  2,  1905,  in  a  speech  delivered  at 
Eastleigh,  Mr.  Arthur  Lee,  Civil  Lord  of  the 
British  Admiralty,  said:  “If  war  should  un¬ 
happily  be  declared,  under  existing  conditions, 
the  British  Navy  would  get  its  blow  in  first,  be¬ 
fore  the  other  side  had  time  even  to  read  in  the 
papers  that  war  had  been  declared.”2 

For  many  years  Colonel  J.  F.  C.  Fuller,  D.  S. 
Q.,  of  the  British  Army,  has  been  writing  hooks 
on  war.  Recently  he  won  the  Gold  Medal  of  the 
Royal  United  Service  Institution  with  an  essay 
on  the  warfare  of  the  future.  In  1923  he  pub¬ 
lished  a  volume  of  287  pages,  entitled  “The 
Reformation  of  War,”  in  which  he  says:  “To 
anathematize  war  is  to  gibber  like  a  fool,  and 
to  declare  it  unreasonable  is  to  twaddle  like  a 
pedant.  .  .  .  Without  war  there  would  be  no 
driving  out  of  the  money-lenders  from  the  temple 
of  human  existence.  Without  it,  customs,  in¬ 
terests  and  prejudices  would  rot  and  putrefy, 

1“Lord  Roberts’  Message  to  the  Nation,”  pp.  8,  9. 

“Quoted  by  E.  D.  Morel,  “Diplomacy  Revealed,”  p.  31. 

[36] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


and  mankind  would  be  slowly  asphyxiated  by 
the  stench  of  its  own  corruption.  .  •  .  The 
present  implements  of  war  must  be  scrapped  and 
these  bloody  tools  must  be  replaced  by  weapons 
the  moral  effect  of  which  is  so  terrific  that  a 
nation  attacked  by  them  will  lose  its  mental 
balance  and  will  compel  the  government  to  accept 
the  hostile  policy  without  further  demur.  .  .  . 
War  is  a  great  physician,  a  great  medicine,  a 
great  purge.  .  .  .  The  nation  which  depends  for 
the  security  of  its  honour  on  some  international 
police  force  has  become  but  a  kept-woman  among 
nations.  ...  If  honour  be  worth  safeguarding, 
war  sooner  or  later  becomes  inevitable,  for,  in  this 
world,  there  are  always  to  be  found  dishonour¬ 
able  men,  and  if  war  does  not  range  a  nation 
against  these,  then  must  vice  live  triumphant.”1 

France  also  had  her  militarists  and  jingo  press. 
The  very  titles  of  the  books  of  Colonel  Arthur 
Boucher,  one  of  the  most  popular  military  writers 
in  France,  are  significant:  “Germany  in  Peril,” 
“The  Offensive  Against  Germany,”  “France 
Victorious  in  the  War  of  Tomorrow.”  In  1913 


1  Ibid.,  pp.  14,  30,  41,  64,  282. 


[37] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


a  French  writer,  Commandant  de  Civrieux,  pub¬ 
lished  a  volume  entitled,  “Germany  Encircled.” 

Concerning  the  French  policy,  the  Russian 
Ambassador  Benckendorff  said:  “When  I  recall 
Cambon’s  conversations  with  me,  the  words  ex¬ 
changed,  and  add  the  attitude  of  Poincare,  the 
thought  comes  to  me  as  a  conviction  that  of  all 
the  Powers  France  is  the  only  one  which,  not  to 
say  that  it  wishes  war,  would  yet  look  upon  it 
without  great  regret.”1 

On  January  16,  1914,  the  Belgian  Minister  in 
Paris  wrote  to  the  Belgian  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  as  follows:  “I  have  already  had  the 
honour  to  mention  that  it  was  Messrs.  Poincare, 
Delcasse,  Miilerand,  and  their  friends  who  have 
created  and  pursued  that  policy  of  nationalism, 
flag-wagging,  and  jingoism,  whose  revival  we 
have  been  observing.  It  is  a  danger  to  Europe 
— and  to  Belgium.  I  see  in  it  the  greatest  peril 
that  threatens  the  peace  of  Europe  today.  Not 
that  I  have  any  right  to  suppose  that  the  French 
Government  is  disposed  deliberately  to  disturb 
the  peace — I  am  inclined  to  the  opposite  belief 

1  Quoted  in  Judge  Frederick  Bausman,  “Let  France  Explain,” 

p.  28. 

[38] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


— but  because  the  line  taken  by  the  Barthou 
Ministry  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  determining  cause 
of  the  increase  of  militaristic  tendencies  in  Ger¬ 
many. ,n 

Not  only  were  the  nations  heavily  armed  and 
constantly  engaged  in  war-talk,  the  diplomatic 
documents  which  have  thus  far  been  revealed 
make  it  clear  that  practically  all  the  European 
statesmen  and  military  leaders  regarded  the  out¬ 
break  of  war  as  inevitable.  From  numerous 
English  leaders  we  learn  that  there  was  general 
satisfaction  with  the  state  of  the  British  fleet.  In 
speaking  at  Bedford  College  on  November  29, 
1918,  Lord  Haldane,  for  many  years  Minister  of 
War,  said:  “At  the  outbreak  of  war  the  fleet  was 
in  such  a  state  of  efficiency  as  never  before,  and 
we  were  two  to  one  even  then  against  the  whole 
German  fleet.  ...  We  mobilized  at  11  o’clock 
on  Monday,  August  3,  36  hours  before  we  de¬ 
clared  war.  Within  a  few  hours,  with  the  aid  of 
the  Navy,  the  Expeditionary  Force  was  across 
the  Channel  before  anybody  knew  it.”* 

1  Quoted  in  '‘Diplomacy  Revealed,”  p.  280. 

2  Quoted  by  E.  D.  Morel,  “Pre-War  Diplomacy,”  p.  43. 

[39] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


Several  important  British  leaders  go  further 
and  admit  that  England  was  responsible  for 
starting  the  race  in  naval  armaments.  In  an 
address  at  Queens  Hall  on  July  28,  1908,  Mr. 
Lloyd  George  said:  “We  started  it;  it  is  not  they 
who  have  started  it.  We  had  an  overwhelming 
preponderance  at  sea  which  could  have  secured 
us  against  any  conceivable  enemy.  We  were  not 
satisfied;  we  said,  ‘Let  there  be  Dreadnoughts.’ 5,1 

At  Manchester,  on  February  3,  1914,  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  British  Foreign  Minister,  said: 
“I  admit  that  we  had  some  responsibility  orig¬ 
inally  for  building  the  first  Dreadnought.  No 
doubt  we  are  open  to  criticism  that  we  set  the 
example.”1 2 

France  likewise  expected  war  and  prepared  in 
every  possible  way.  On  May  8,  1914,  the  Bel¬ 
gian  Minister  in  Paris,  in  a  confidential  com¬ 
munication  to  the  Belgian  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  said:  “There  is  no  doubt  that  the  French 
nation  has  become  more  chauvinist  and  self- 
assured  during  these  last  few  months.  There 

1  Quoted  in  “Diplomacy  Revealed,”  p.  136. 

2  Quoted  by  Francis  Neilson,  “Duty  to  Civilization,”  p.  50. 

[40] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


are  men,  well  informed  and  thoroughly  versed  in 
affairs,  who  two  years  ago  expressed  lively  fears 
at  the  bare  mention  of  possible  difficulties  arising 
between  France  and  Germany.  These  same 
persons  have  now  changed  their  tone,  are  pro¬ 
claiming  the  certainty  of  victory,  lay  great  stress 
on  the  improvements  in  the  French  Army  (which 
is  true  enough),  and  declare  themselves  sure  of 
being  able  at  least  to  hold  the  German  Army  in 
check  long  enough  to  allow  Russia  to  mobilise, 
concentrate  her  forces  and  hurl  herself  upon  her 
neighbour  on  her  Western  frontier.”1 

On  August  4,  1914,  in  speaking  before  the 
French  Parliament,  President  Poincare  said: 
“France  was  watching,  as  alert  as  she  is  peaceful. 
She  was  prepared,  and  our  enemy  will  meet  on 
their  path  our  valiant  troops.”  General  Buat,  a 
member  of  the  French  General  Staff,  in  a  book 
published  in  1920,  said:  “One  can  say,  then,  that 
without  taking  any  account  of  the  Belgian  Army 
or  the  four  British  divisions,  France  alone  was 
at  the  beginning  at  least  equal  if  not  superior  to 


1  Quoted  in  “Diplomacy  Revealed,”  p.  292. 


[41] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


her  formidable  adversary  in  the  number  of  the 
principal  units.”1 

The  Russian  army  was  by  far  the  largest  in 
the  world.  Only  two  weeks  before  the  murder 
of  the  Archduke  Ferdinand  at  Serajevo,  a  lead¬ 
ing  Russian  journal2  printed  a  notable  article, 
generally  attributed  to  the  Russian  Minister  of 
War,  which  called  attention  to  the  state  of  the 
army:  “Our  yearly  contingent  of  recruits  has  been 
increased  by  a  late  Imperial  Order  from  450,000 
to  580,000  men.  By  this  means  we  have  a  yearly 
increase  of  the  Army  of  130,000  men.  At  the 
same  time,  the  service  period  has  been  lengthened 
by  half  a  year,  so  that  during  every  winter  four 
contingents  of  recruits  will  be  standing  under 
colours.  By  the  help  of  a  simple  arithmetical 
calculation  one  can  establish  the  numerical  state¬ 
ment  concerning  our  Army,  which  is  as  large  as 
ever  a  State  has  been  able  to  show:  viz,  580,000 
X  4  =  2,320,000.  These  figures  need  no  comment. 
The  great  and  powerful  Russia  alone  can  allow 
herself  such  a  luxury.  It  may  be  mentioned,  by 

1  Quoted  in  “Let  France  Explain,”  p.  157. 

2  The  Birshewija  Viedomosti,  June  13,  1914,  quoted  in  “Pre-War 
Diplomacy,”  pp.  28,  29. 

[42] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

i 

way  of  comparison,  that  the  German  Army,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  last  military  law,  had  880,000, 
Austria,  500,000,  and  Italy  about  400,000.” 

The  St.  Petersburg  correspondent  of  the  Lon¬ 
don  Times,  on  September  10,  1913,  stated:  “Ry 
general  consent  the  Russian  Army  has  never 
been  in  better  condition.  It  is  well  clothed,  well 
fed,  and  while  the  evidence  as  to  the  state  of  its 
artillery  is  inconclusive,  its  musketry  training  has 
been  greatly  improved.”1 

(3)  Alliances 

We  have  reminded  ourselves  that  all  the 
major  powers  of  Europe  were  participants  in 
the  worldwide  struggle  for  territories,  raw  mate¬ 
rials,  trade  routes  and  markets  and  that  all  of 
them  were  prepared  to  use  military  and  naval 
force  to  hold  economic  advantages  already  se¬ 
cured  or  to  gain  additional  advantages.  Not 
only  were  they  prepared  to  use  national  armies 
and  navies,  they  were  constantly  seeking  to 
strengthen  their  position  by  forming  alliances 
or  entering  into  treaties  with  other  nations. 
Germany  and  Austria  entered  into  an  alliance 


Quoted  by  E.  D.  Morel,  “Truth  and  the  War,”  p.  142. 

[43] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


in  1879.  In  1882  Italy,  after  failing  to  resist 
French  aggression  in  Tunis,  sought  and  obtained 
an  alliance  with  Germany  and  Austria. 

In  1891  France  and  Russia  entered  into  an 
alliance  and  in  1894  a  military  convention  be¬ 
tween  them  was  ratified.  “This  Convention  pro¬ 
vided  for  combined  and  instant  operations  in 
case  either  of  the  parties  was  attacked  by  any 
of  the  powers  of  the  Triple  Alliance,  for  imme¬ 
diate  mobilization  without  preliminary  notice, 
and  for  forward  movements  to  the  frontiers. 
The  number  of  men  to  be  employed  against 
Germany  was  agreed  upon,  future  conferences 
were  provided  for,  a  no-separate-peace  clause 
was  inserted,  the  duration  of  the  Convention  was 
fixed  at  the  life  of  the  Triple  Alliance.”1 

In  1904  France  and  England  entered  into  an 
agreement  in  which  it  was  stipulated  that  France 
would  allow  England  a  free  hand  in  Egypt,  in 
return  for  which  England  would  allow  France  a 
free  hand  in  Morocco.  This  agreement  soon 
ripened  into  an  entente  cordiale  between  the  two 
nations.  Indeed,  the  understanding  between 

1  Chas.  A.  Beard,  “Cross  Currents  in  Europe  Today,”  p.  16. 

[44] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


France  and  England  went  far  beyond  mere  cor¬ 
diality.  In  a  volume  published  since  the  war, 
Lord  French,  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
British  Expeditionary  Force  in  France  in  1914, 
says:  “It  is  now  within  the  knowledge  of  all  that 
the  General  Staffs  of  Great  Britain  and  France 
had,  for  a  long  time,  held  conferences,  and  that 
a  complete  mutual  understanding  as  to  combined 
action  in  certain  eventualities  existed .  .  .  .  The 
area  of  concentration  for  the  British  forces  had 
been  fixed  on  the  left  flank  of  the  French,  and 
the  actual  detraining  stations  of  the  various  units 
were  all  laid  down  in  terrain  lying  between  Mau- 
beuge  and  Le  Cateau.  The  Headquarters  of 
the  Army  were  fixed  at  the  latter  place.”1 

In  this  connection,  Colonel  Repington,  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  English  military  correspondent,  also 
says:  “The  Anglo-French  military  conversa¬ 
tions,  officially  begun  in  January,  1906,  contin¬ 
ued  uninterruptedly  till  the  outbreak  of  war  in 
1914.  They  led  to  close  co-operation  of  the 
British  and  French  Staffs,  and  to  the  gradual 
working  out  of  all  the  naval,  military,  and  rail- 


1  The  title  of  this  book  is  “1914,”  pp.  5,  8.  Italics  mine. 

[45] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


way  projects  for  the  delivery  of  our  Expedition¬ 
ary  Force  in  France.”1 

Thus  the  major  European  powers  did  not  de¬ 
pend  merely  upon  national  armies  and  navies 
but  formed  alliances  and  pooled  their  resources. 
This  fact  gives  new  meaning  to  the  race  of  ar¬ 
maments  indulged  in  during  the  two  or  three 
decades  prior  to  the  war. 

The  following  table  shows  the  comparative 
expenditures  of  the  Triple  Alliance  and  the 
Triple  Entente  during  the  years  from  1900  to 
1913,  inclusive:2 

Millions  of  Pounds  Sterling 


Germany . 

Army 

551.5 

Navy 

214.4 

Total 

765.9 

Austria-Hungary . 

282.5 

46.2 

328.7 

Italy . 

193.7 

95.0 

288.7 

Total  of  Triple  Alliance 

1027.7 

355.6 

1383 . 3 

Russia . 

630.8 

173.4 

810.2 

France . 

464.0 

196.4 

660.4 

Great  Britain . 

390.1* 

499.5 

889.6 

Total  of  Triple  Entente  1490 . 9 

869.3 

2360 . 2 

*  Not  including  178  millions  extraordinary  expenditures  in  the 
South  African  War.  The  above  figure  includes  an  average  of  28 
millions  for  1900-1903. 


1  Colonel  Chas.  Repington,  “The  First  World  War,”  Vol.  I,  p.  14. 

2  Summary  of  figures  quoted  on  pp.  30,  31. 

[46] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  situation  was  even 
more  striking  than  this  because  Italy  actually 
fought  in  the  World  War  on  the  side  of  the 
Triple  Entente.  If,  therefore,  we  transfer  Italy’s 
expenditures  to  the  side  of  the  Triple  Entente, 
we  get  the  following  summary:  Total  of  Ger¬ 
many  and  Austria,  1094  millions;  total  of  Rus¬ 
sia,  France,  Great  Rritain  and  Italy,  2648  mil¬ 
lions.  That  is  to  say,  during  the  years  from 
1900  to  1913  Great  Britain  and  Russia  were  each 
spending  more  upon  their  armies  and  navies  than 
was  Germany,  while  the  total  expenditures  of 
the  four  powers  of  the  Triple  Entente  was  more 
than  two  and  a  half  times  that  of  Germany  and 
Austria-Hungary. 

In  the  House  of  Commons  on  June  5,  1913, 
a  member  asked  the  Secretary  of  War  “what 
additions  had  been  made  during  the  last  two 
years  to  the  peace  strength  of  the  armies  of  Rus¬ 
sia,  Austria-Hungary,  Germany  and  France.” 
The  reply  was  as  follows  i1 

Russia 


Additions  made .  7 5 , 000 

Present  peace  establishment .  1 , 284 , 000 


Future:  not  yet  ascertained. 

1  Quoted  in  “Truth  and  the  War,”  p.  144. 


[47] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


France 

Additions  proposed .  183,715 

F uture  peace  establishment .  741,572 

Germany 

Additions  made .  38 , 373 

Additions  proposed .  136 , 000 

Future  peace  establishment .  821,964 

A  ustria-H  ungary 

Additions  made .  58,505 

Present  peace  establishment .  473 , 643 

Future:  not  yet  ascertained. 


The  table  on  page  49  shows  the  comparative 
strength  of  the  various  navies  in  1914.1 

(4)  Secret  Diplomacy 

In  no  European  nation  prior  to  the  Great 
War  did  the  members  of  Parliament  have  any 
adequate  knowledge  as  to  the  actions  of  foreign 
offices.  In  this  connection,  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Commons  has  written:  “The  destinies 
of  the  people  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  Cabinet  and 
of  individual  Ministers  in  the  Cabinet.  For¬ 
eign  policy  is  formed  without  any  regard  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people.  The  people  are  simply 
not  taken  into  account.  They  have  to  abide  by 
decisions  with  the  framing  of  which  they  have 


1  “The  Navy  League  Annual  19 13—14, ”  p.  353. 
[48] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


I 

© 


hO 

5S 

CO 


*  -S 

©  § 

■  <s>  © 

^  cq 


CD 

CO 


CD 

©* 


CO  J>  ©*  *© 

i>  D  O  «5 


1 

CO 

Co 

00 

00 

o 

00 

CO 

O 

o 

* 

O* 

Co 

© 

’'T4 

rH 

rH 

rH 

©* 

©* 

GO 

rH 

© 

"© 

£ 

CO 

»K> 

© 

© 

c\ 

«0 

«KS 

© 

© 

r? 

CO 

i> 

©* 

CO 

1© 

C© 

© 

f*© 

e 

*© 

00 

o 

rH 

©* 

©* 

rH 

CD 

rH 

CO 

£ 


i 

Co 

<S>  <V) 

ss  £ 
>•  ^ 


d  CO  CO 

^  rH  t— H 


*© 

i> 


©* 

C5 


CD 


"© 

CO 


I 

Co 


© 

•<>> 

© 

co 

c©  ©*  c* 

1  9 

r-H 

O  CD  1 

5- 

© 

1 

*C 

©*  1 

I  Co 

©  *2  *g 

?->>  ^ 


00  o  o 

c^  c^ 


00 

00 


00  CO  ©* 


•  >5 

:  S’ 
>;w 

Cv  •  rH 

H  S  +3  !>> 
S  3 

ocfi 


H 

O 

£ 

<1 

M 

a 

h3 

<! 


h3 

Ph 


£ 


O 

H 


H 

S.M 

|.-§ 

13  HP5 

■y  +j 

W  © 


g  eg 

W  •  pH 

rj  V) 

'£  S  g  3 

5  O  Fh  Ph 


« 

H 


[49] 


Total .  138  77  119  325  471  254 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


had  absolutely  nothing  to  do.  In  the  most  im¬ 
portant  branch  of  its  executive  function — the 
control  and  direction  of  foreign  policy — the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  this  country  is  no  more  democratic 
than  was  the  Government  of  the  Tsar  or  the 
Government  of  Germany  under  the  old  regime. 
This  is  literally  true.”1 

The  manner  in  which  European  diplomats 
operate  has  been  revealed  by  the  publication 
since  1914  of  large  numbers  of  private  docu¬ 
ments  from  the  Belgian,  Russian,  German  and 
Austrian  archives,  and  by  the  frank  statements 
contained  in  numerous  books  of  memoirs  re¬ 
cently  published. 

In  1891  Russia  and  France  entered  into  an 
Alliance  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  the  gen¬ 
eral  peace.  In  1899  this  agreement  was  revised 
and  strengthened.  In  1912  an  agreement  was 
signed  providing  for  naval,  as  well  as  military, 
co-operation  in  case  of  war.  The  French  people 
did  not  know  the  exact  nature  of  these  agree¬ 
ments.  As  far  back  as  1896  members  of  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  sought  in  vain  to  learn  the 

*E.  D.  Morel,  “Diplomacy  Revealed,”  p.  ix. 

[50] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


extent  of  the  obligations  assumed  by  France. 
On  numerous  occasions  the  French  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  declined  to  go  into  details  and 
in  each  case  was  supported  by  the  Chamber. 

After  a  careful  study  of  the  documents  which 
have  recently  been  made  available,  Professor 
Chas.  A.  Beard  says:  “It  is  no  doubt  hazardous 
to  draw  conclusions  from  these  documents,  but 
two  or  three  seem  to  be  unavoidable.  Russia  de¬ 
cided  early  in  1908  on  an  active  policy  which 
could  not  fail  to  lead  to  a  clash  with  Austria. 
France  later  gave  her  a  free  hand  either  without 
knowing  what  the  program  of  St.  Petersburg 
really  was  or  with  full  knowledge  of  the  policy 
and  the  consequences.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
French  Prime  Minister  told  Russia  to  take  the 
initiative  and  promised  active  diplomatic  sup¬ 
port.  It  is  clear  also  that  the  French  Prime 
Minister  was  aware  that  this  might  lead  to  a 
general  war  by  drawing  in  Germany  and  involv¬ 
ing  France.  It  may  be  that  circumstances  war¬ 
ranted  M.  Poincare  in  following  this  line  but 
one  thing  is  certain:  nobody  in  France  outside 
of  the  diplomatic  circle  knew  what  commitments 

[51] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


were  being  made — commitments  fraught  with 
such  agony  for  mankind.”1 

During  the  decade  prior  to  1914  there  were 
constant  rumours  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
agreement  between  France  and  England.  In 
March,  1913,  Lord  Hugh  Cecil  sought  informa¬ 
tion  from  the  British  Government:  “There  is  a 
very  general  belief  that  this  country  is  under 
an  obligation,  not  a  treaty  obligation,  but  an 
obligation  arising  owing  to  an  assurance  given 
by  the  Ministry  in  the  course  of  diplomatic  nego¬ 
tiations,  to  send  a  very  large  armed  force  out  of 
this  country  to  operate  in  Europe.  This  is  the 
general  belief.”  In  reply,  the  Prime  Minister, 
Mr.  Asquith,  said:  “I  ought  to  say  that  it  is  not 
true.”  Twice  during  the  next  year  similar  ques¬ 
tions  were  asked  and  on  each  occasion  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  answered  emphatically  in  the  negative. 
The  answer  was  technically  true,  but  as  we  now 
know  it  was  in  reality  false. 

Lord  French,  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
British  Expeditionary  Force  in  France  in  1914, 
has  since  spoken  very  frankly  concerning  the 


1  “Cross  Currents  in  Europe  Today,”  p.  27. 
[52] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


agreement  with  France:  “It  is  now  within  the 
knowledge  of  all  that  the  General  Staffs  of 
Great  Britain  and  France  had,  for  a  long  time, 
held  conferences,  and  that  a  complete  mutual 
understanding  as  to  combined  action  in  certain 
eventualities  existed.”1 

Concerning  these  “conversations”  Colonel 
Repington,  who  had  an  important  share  in  their 
initiation,  says:  “The  matter  was  not  fully  en 
train,  of  course,  until  the  approval  of  the  new 
Prime  Minister,  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Banner¬ 
man,  had  been  secured.  ...  It  was  arranged 
that  a  paper  should  be  signed  by  Grierson  and 
Huget  stipulating  that  the  conversations  should 
not  commit  either  Government,  and  this  was 
done.  C.  B.  (Campbell-Bannerman)  was  a  fine 
old  Tory  in  Army  matters.  He  was  a  warm 
friend  of  the  French,  and  quickly  realised  the 
whole  position.  How  he  explained  matters  to 
certain  members  of  the  new  Cabinet  I  did  not 
ask,  and  it  did  not  matter.  I  believe  that  he  con¬ 
sidered  it  a  departmental  affair,  and  did  not 
bring  it  before  the  Cabinet  at  all  at  the  time,  .  .  . 


1  Viscount  John  French,  “1914,”  p.  8. 


[53] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


The  Anglo-French  military  conversations,  offi¬ 
cially  begun  in  January,  1906,  continued  unin¬ 
terruptedly  till  the  outbreak  of  war  in  1914. 
They  led  to  close  co-operation  of  the  British  and 
French  Staffs,  and  to  the  gradual  working  out 
of  all  the  naval,  military  and  railway  projects 
for  the  delivery  of  our  Expeditionary  Force  in 
France.”1 

Technically  these  “conversations”  did  not 
commit  either  Government,  but  actually  the 
General  Staffs  proceeded  as  if  they  were  bind¬ 
ing.  France  concentrated  her  fleet  in  the  Med¬ 
iterranean  and  left  her  western  and  northern 
coast  line  undefended.  An  entire  plan  of  cam¬ 
paign  was  agreed  upon  and  preparations  were 
made  for  carrying  it  out. 

Concerning  the  actual  effect  of  these  “conver¬ 
sations,”  Lord  Loreburn,  for  many  years  Lord 
Chancellor  of  Great  Britain,  in  a  book  published 
in  1919,  says:  “France  was  bound  by  a  Russian 
Treaty  of  which  we  did  not  know  the  terms,  and 
then  France  called  on  us  for  help.  We  were  tied 
by  the  relations  which  our  Foreign  Office  had 


1  "The  First  World  War,”  pp.  12-14.  Italics  mine. 

[54] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


created,  without  apparently  realizing  that  they 
had  created  them.  .  .  .  When  the  most  mo¬ 
mentous  decision  of  our  whole  history  had  to  be 
taken  we  were  not  free  to  decide.  We  entered 
upon  a  war  to  which  we  had  been  committed  be¬ 
forehand  in  the  dark,  and  Parliament  found  it¬ 
self  at  two  hours’  notice  unable,  had  it  desired, 
to  extricate  us  from  this  fearful  predicament. . . . 
The  original  fault  of  Mr.  Asquith  and  Sir  Ed¬ 
ward  Grey  lay  in  departing  from  the  old  policy 
in  secret,  and  in  allowing  our  Entente  with 
France  to  develop  imperceptibly  till  at  last  it 
was  transformed  into  the  equivalent  of  an  Alli¬ 
ance,  without  the  needful  security  and  advan¬ 
tages  that  an  open  Alliance  would  bring  with  it. 
.  .  .  They  had  conducted  our  foreign  policy  on 
the  lines  of  their  own  choice,  without  reference 
to,  almost  without  regard  to  Parliament.”1 

In  1907  Russia  and  England  signed  a  treaty 
disposing  of  their  differences  in  Southern  Asia 
and  Persia.  During  the  next  seven  years  stren¬ 
uous  efforts  were  put  forth  in  diplomatic  and 
financial  circles  to  strengthen  the  ties  between 


1“How  the  War  Came,”  pp.  16-20.  Italics  mine. 


[55] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


the  two  nations.  During  a  visit  of  King  George 
and  Sir  Edward  Grey  to  Paris  in  April,  1914, 
the  French  Government,  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  Russian  Foreign  Office,  broached  the  subject 
of  a  naval  understanding  between  England  and 
Russia.  The  success  of  the  conference  is  re¬ 
corded  in  a  letter  from  the  Russian  Ambassador 
in  Paris  to  his  own  Government,  in  which  he 
said:  “Sir  Edward  replied  to  M.  Doumergue 
that  he  personally  completely  sympathized  with 
the  thoughts  which  had  been  expressed  to  him 
and  that  he  was  quite  prepared  to  conclude  an 
agreement  with  Russia  similar  to  the  one  that 
existed  between  England  and  France.”  During 
May  and  June  naval  “conversations”  were  held 
between  Russian  and  English  naval  staffs. 
German  newspapers  learned  of  these  “conversa¬ 
tions”  and  published  a  flaming  account.  The 
Russian  Government  then  issued  a  flat  denial. 
In  the  House  of  Commons  in  June,  1914,  Sir 
Edward  Grey  was  asked  “whether  any  negotia¬ 
tions  with  a  view  to  a  naval  agreement  have  re¬ 
cently  taken  place  or  are  now  pending  between 
Russia  and  Great  Britain?”  To  this  question 

[56] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


he  gave  an  evasive  reply  that  there  were  no 
4 ‘unpublished  agreements  which  would  restrict 
or  hamper  the  freedom  of  the  Government  or 
of  Parliament  to  decide  whether  or  not  Great 
Britain  should  participate  in  a  war.”  At  this 
time  the  Russian  Ambassador  in  London  wrote 
to  his  own  Government  that  Sir  Edward  Grey 
would  “find  it  difficult  to  issue  a  denial  and  go 
on  negotiating  at  the  same  time.”  Upon  this 
point  Professor  Beard  says:  “The  situation  was 
indeed  delicate  and  embarrassing,  but  Anglo- 
Russian  naval  preparations  were  not  halted  by 
the  disturbances  among  the  statesmen  and  poli¬ 
ticians.  When  the  war  came  a  few  weeks  later 
all  the  two  powers  had  to  do  was  to  order  the 
execution  of  plans  already  prepared.”1 

Secret  negotiations  between  France,  Russia 
and  Great  Britain  did  not  cease  at  the  outbreak 
of  war.  On  the  contrary  a  notable  series  of 
secret  treaties  were  signed  during  the  period 
from  March,  1915,  to  March,  1917.  The  most 
important  of  these  was  the  Treaty  of  London, 
signed  on  April  26,  1915,  by  Great  Britain, 


1  “Cross  Currents  in  Europe  Today,”  p.  50. 


[57] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


Italy,  France  and  Russia.  The  terms  of  these 
treaties  were  unknown  to  the  people  of  any  of 
the  countries  concerned  until  they  were  revealed 
by  the  Bolsheviks  following  the  overthrow  of  the 
Czar.  It  should  be  recalled  that  during  the  per¬ 
iod  these  treaties  were  negotiated  the  Allied 
leaders  were  proclaiming  the  ideal  aims  of  the 
war.1 

These  treaties  reveal  clearly  the  very  wide 
divergence  between  the  public  utterances  and  the 
actual  purposes  of  the  Allied  leaders.  “Every 
clause  of  every  treaty,”  says  G.  Lowes  Dickin¬ 
son,  “dealt  simply  with  the  transference  of  ter¬ 
ritory  from  the  enemy  states  to  the  allies,  that 
the  former  might  become  weaker,  and  the  latter 
stronger.”2 

According  to  the  provisions  of  these  treaties 
the  Allied  nations  were  to  receive  additional  ter¬ 
ritory  as  follows:3 


1  These  treaties  were  published  in  the  official  journal  of  the 
Soviets  and  in  the  Manchester  Guardian.  Later  they  were  pub¬ 
lished  in  book  form  by  F.  Seymour  Cocks  under  the  title,  “The 
Secret  Treaties.”  A  good  summary  is  found  in  Ray  Stannard 
Baker’s  “Woodrow  Wilson  and  World  Settlement,”  Vol.  I,  Chap¬ 
ter  3;  and  in  “The  Peace  Tangle,”  by  John  Foster  Bass,  Chapter  2. 

2  “War :  Its  Nature,  Cause  and  Cure,”  p.  86. 

3  “The  Secret  Treaties,”  pp.  93,  94. 

[58] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

Great  Britain:  Neutral  zone  in  Persia,  South¬ 
ern  Mesopotamia,  Bagdad,  Haifa  and  Akka  in 
Syria,  and  a  part  of  the  German  colonies. 

France:  Syria,  Adana  Vilayet,  territory  in 
Asia  Minor,  Alsace-Lorraine,  Saar  Valley,  oc¬ 
cupation  of  territories  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Rhine,  and  a  part  of  the  German  colonies. 

Italy:  Trentino,  Southern  Tyrol,  Trieste, 
Country  of  Gorizia-Gradisca,  Istria,  Istrian  Is¬ 
lands,  Dalmatia,  Dalmatian  Islands,  Valona, 
Islands  of  the  Aegean,  Adalia  and  territory  in 
Asia  Minor,  extension  of  colonies  in  Africa,  a 
share  in  the  war  indemnity. 

Japan:  Parts  of  Shantung,  Pacific  Islands, 

Roumania:  Transylvania,  the  Banat,  Buko- 
vina. 

Russia:  Constantinople,  Turkey  in  Europe, 
Bosphorus  and  Dardanelles,  Sea  of  Marmora, 
Imbros  and  Tenedos,  full  liberty  in  Northern 
Persia,  Ispahan  and  Yezd,  Trebizond,  Erzerum, 
Van  and  Bitlis,  further  territory  in  Asia  Minor. 

Serbia  and  Montenegro:  Southern  Dalma¬ 
tian  Coast,  Spalato,  Ragusa,  Cattaro,  San  Gio- 

[59] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


vanni  di  Medua  in  Albania,  possible  annexation 
of  Northern  Albanian  district. 

In  commenting  upon  these  treaties,  Mr.  John 
Foster  Bass  says:  “One  reading  of  this  whole¬ 
sale  distribution  of  alien  territory  will  show  the 
flagrant  political  immoralities  and  the  funda¬ 
mental  disagreements  with  every  public  declara¬ 
tion  made  by  the  Entente  statesmen  to  their 
parliaments  and  peoples.  By  these  agreements 
the  Allies  each  took  its  share  of  the  domain  of 
those  it  expected  to  conquer.”1 

Concerning  the  effects  of  these  treaties  upon 
the  negotiations  of  the  Peace  Conference,  Mr. 
Ray  Stannard  Baker,  who  was  entrusted  by 
President  Wilson  with  the  secret  minutes  and 
other  important  documents  and  requested  to  pre¬ 
pare  a  history  of  the  proceedings,  says : 

“When  the  Peace  Conference  began  the  same 
elements  in  each  nation,  often  the  same  leaders 
who  had  made  those  secret  treaties  were  still  in 
power.  Not  only  did  most  of  them  know  and 
believe  in  that  method  of  diplomacy — some  of 
them  had  been  schooled  in  it  all  their  lives — not 


1  “The  Peace  Tangle,”  p.  15. 

[60] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

only  were  they  committed  to  the  full  use  of  the 
military  method,  which  they  also  understood 
perfectly,  but  far  more  fundamental  than  either, 
these  secret  treaties  represented  the  real  views, 
the  real  desires,  the  real  necessities  of  the  various 
governments.  .  .  .  Nothing  in  the  voluminous 
records  of  the  Council  of  Ten  and  Council  of 
Four  at  Paris  is  more  impressive  than  the  amount 
of  time — invaluable  time,  priceless  energy — de¬ 
voted  to  trying  to  devise  methods  of  getting 
around  or  over  or  through  these  old  secret  en¬ 
tanglements.  There,  and  not  in  discussions  of 
the  League  of  Nations,  was  where  the  time  was 
lost.  .  .  . 

“Such  were,  in  general,  the  desires,  needs, 
ambitions  of  the  allied  governments  set  forth  in 
the  secret  treaties.  So  they  intended,  if  they  won 
the  war,  to  divide  up  the  world ;  so  they  actually 
tried  to  divide  it  up  at  the  Peace  Conference. 
Though  outwardly  they  were  combating  im¬ 
perialism  as  symbolized  by  Germany,  they  were 
themselves  seeking  vast  extensions  of  their  own 
imperial  and  economic  power.  They  kept  these 
agreements  secret  from  their  own  people,  fear- 

[61] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


ing  their  effect  upon  the  great  masses  of  the 
workers  and  liberal  groups;  they  kept  them 
secret  also  from  their  smaller  allies,  like  Serbia, 
and  they  kept  them  secret  from  America,  both 
before  and  after  America  came  into  the  war. 
These  treaties,  partly  disclosed  in  enemy  coun¬ 
tries  through  the  publication  of  the  Bolsheviki, 
and  greatly  exaggerated  there,  were  powder  and 
shot — army  corps ! — to  the  enemy,  for  they  were 
used  to  prove  the  contention  of  the  German  war 
lords  that  the  Allies  were  really  fighting  to 
gobble  up  the  world.  And  finally  they  bore  a 
crop  of  suspicion,  controversy,  balked  ambition, 
which  twice,  at  least,  nearly  wrecked  the  Peace 
Conference,  poisoned  its  discussions,  and  warped 
and  disfigured  its  final  decisions/’1 

(5)  Fear 

Foreign  offices  and  war  departments  during 
the  past  several  decades  have  appealed  to  the 
fears  of  peoples  in  seeking  support  for  their 
policies.  With  the  whole  of  Europe  a  huge 
armed  camp  and  with  the  memory  of  not  less 

1  “Woodrow  Wilson  and  World  Settlement/’  Vol.  I,  pp.  24-26, 
79-80. 

[62] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


than  forty  important  wars  during  the  century, 
the  fears  of  the  people  were  aroused  with  great 
ease.  That  the  writings  of  Prussian  militarists 
and  the  war  talk  of  the  Kaiser  and  his  generals 
had  produced  a  panic  of  fear  throughout  France , 
Russia  and  England  does  not  require  further 
proof.  The  genuineness  of  this  fear  cannot  be 
disputed. 

The  fact  is  sometimes  overlooked,  however, 
that  the  German  people  and  many  of  the  Ger¬ 
man  leaders  were  likewise  filled  with  fear.  This 
fact  was  often  admitted  before  the  war  and  has 
been  pointed  out  in  recent  speeches  and  books  by 
several  Allied  leaders.  Speaking  at  the  Queen’s 
Hall  on  July  28,  1908,  Mr.  Lloyd  George  said: 
“Look  at  the  position  of  Germany.  Her  Army 
is  to  her  what  our  Navy  is  to  us — her  sole  defence 
against  invasion.  She  has  not  a  two-power 
standard.  She  may  have  a  stronger  Army  than 
France,  than  Russia,  than  Italy,  than  Austria, 
but  she  is  between  two  great  powers,  who,  in  com¬ 
bination,  could  pour  in  a  vastly  greater  number 
of  troops  than  she  has.  Don’t  forget  that,  when 
you  wonder  why  Germany  is  frightened  at  alii- 

[63] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


ances  and  understandings  and  some  sort  of  mys¬ 
terious  workings  which  appear  in  the  press.  .  .  . 
Here  is  Germany  in  the  middle  of  Europe,  with 
France  and  Russia  on  either  side,  and  with  a 
combination  of  armies  greater  than  hers.  Sup¬ 
pose  we  had  a  possible  combination  which  would 
lay  us  open  to  invasion — suppose  Germany  and 
France,  or  Germany  and  Austria,  had  fleets 
which,  in  combination,  would  be  stronger  than 
ours.  Would  we  not  be  frightened;  would  we 
not  build;  would  we  not  arm?  Of  course  we 
should.  I  want  our  friends,  who  think  that  be¬ 
cause  Germany  is  a  little  frightened  she  really 
means  mischief  to  us,  to  remember  that  she  is 
frightened  for  a  reason  which  would  frighten  us 
under  the  same  circumstances.” 

In  a  letter  written  on  March  21,  1909,  to  Lord 
Esher,  Lord  Fisher  said:  “The  Germans  are  not 
building  in  this  feverish  haste  to  fight  you!  No! 
It’s  the  daily  dread  they  have  of  a  second  Copen¬ 
hagen,  which  they  know  a  Pitt  or  a  Bismarck 
would  execute  on  them!”  Again,  on  September 
20, 1911,  Lord  Fisher  wrote:  “I  happen  to  know 
in  a  curious  way  (but  quite  certainly)  that  the 

[64] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

Germans  are  in  a  blue  funk  of  the  British 
Navy.”1 

Colonel  Repington,  in  the  London  Times  in 
1911,  wrote:  “The  possibility  of  a  war  on  two 
fronts  is  the  nightmare  of  German  strategists, 
and  considering  the  pace  at  which  Russia  has 
been  building  up  her  field  armies  since  1905,  the 
nightmare  is  not  likely  to  be  soon  conjured 
away.”2 

In  the  Williamstown  lecture,  delivered  in 
1921,  Viscount  Bryce,  one  of  the  most  distin¬ 
guished  of  British  statesmen,  said:  “The  narrow 
avoidance  of  war  on  several  occasions  had  left 
the  governments  and  the  military  castes  not  more 
but  from  year  to  year  less  pacific  in  spirit,  for 
there  was  no  will  to  peace.  Any  spark  was 
enough  to  fire  the  train.  Fear,  moreover,  was 
added.  Russia  and  Germany  each  feared  the 
other,  each  dreaded  a  sudden  attack  by  the  other. 
Let  us  allow  the  Germans  the  benefit  of  that  con¬ 
sideration.  They  really  were  in  bona  fide  terror 
of  what  Russia  might  do  and  thought  that  their 
chance  was  to  strike  at  Russia  before  the  on- 


1  Quoted  in  “Diplomacy  Revealed,”  p.  136. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  270. 


[65] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


slaught  which  they  certainly  expected  from  her 
had  actually  materialized.”1 

In  1920  Lord  Haldane  wrote:  “It  is  difficult 
for  us  to  understand  how  real  the  Slav  peril  ap¬ 
peared  to  Germany  and  to  Austria,  and  there  is 
little  doubt  that  to  the  latter  Serbia  was  an 
unquiet  neighbor.”2 

Mr.  Gerard,  former  American  Ambassador  in 
Berlin,  has  written:  “To  the  outsider  the  Ger¬ 
mans  seem  a  fierce  and  martial  people.  But,  in 
reality,  the  mass  of  the  Germans,  in  consenting 
to  the  great  sacrifice  entailed  by  their  enormous 
preparations  for  war,  have  been  actuated  by 
fear.”3 

( 6 )  Immediate  Causes 

Perhaps  we  are  now  in  a  better  position  to 
understand  the  significance  of  the  events  follow¬ 
ing  the  murder  of  the  Archduke  Ferdinand  at 
Serajevo.  Professor  Sidney  Bradshaw  Fay,  of 
Smith  College,  after  a  careful  study  of  the  diplo¬ 
matic  documents  made  public  by  the  new  Ger¬ 
man  republic,  by  the  Austrian  Foreign  Office 

1  “International  Relations,”  p.  38. 

2  “Before  the  War,”  p.  91. 

3  “My  Four  Years  in  Germany,”  p.  92. 

[66] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


following  the  collapse  of  the  old  government,  and 
by  the  Bolsheviks  following  the  Russian  revolu¬ 
tion,  published  a  notable  series  of  articles  in  the 
American  Historical  Review  in  1919  and  1920. 
Since  these  articles  have  generally  been  accepted 
as  authoritative,  it  seems  wise  to  quote  Professor 
Fay  at  some  length : 

“It  is  curious  to  see  how  zealously  each  of  these 
two  men,1  after  studying  one  set  of  documents, 
assigns  exclusively  the  whole  blame  to  his  own 
former  government.  According  to  Kautsky, 
Germany  eagerly  pushed  a  hesitating  Berchtold 
into  the  attack  on  Serbia  and  a  world  war.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Gooss,  the  unsuspecting  Emperor 
William  was  the  sacrificial  lamb  offered  upon 
the  altar  of  Berchtold ’s  reckless  perfidy  and 
obstinacy.2 

“Austria  suspected  in  the  spring  of  1914  that 
Russia  and  France  were  secretly  urging  on  the 
Pan-Serbian  movement  and  encouraging  the  for¬ 
mation  of  a  new  Balkan  alliance  of  which  Serbia 
was  to  be  the  head  and  of  which  the  purpose  was 

JKarl  Kautsky  was  authorized  to  edit  the  German  documents 
bearing  on  the  cause  of  the  war,  while  Dr.  Richard  Gooss  had  a 
like  responsibility  for  the  Austrian  documents. 

2  “American  Historical  Review,”  Vol.  25,  pp.  617,  618. 

[67] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

the  uniting  of  all  Jugo-Slavia  under  Serbian  rule. 
.  .  •  Thus  the  Kaiser  and  Bethmann  chose  their 
policy.  They  gave  Austria  a  free  hand  and  made 
the  mistake  of  putting  the  situation  outside  their 
control  into  the  hands  of  a  man  as  reckless  and 
as  unscrupulous  as  Berchtold.  They  committed 
themselves  to  a  leap  in  the  dark.  They  soon 
found  themselves  involved,  as  we  shall  see,  in 
actions  which  they  did  not  approve,  and  by  de¬ 
cisions  which  were  taken  against  their  advice; 
but  they  could  not  seriously  object  or  threaten, 
because  they  had  pledged  their  support  to  Aus¬ 
tria  in  advance,  and  any  hesitation  on  their  part 
would  only  weaken  the  Triple  Alliance  at  a 
critical  moment  when  it  was  most  needed  to  be 

i 

strong.  Bethmann  and  the  Kaiser  on  July  5 
were  not  criminals  plotting  the  World  War;  they 
were  simpletons  putting  ‘a  noose  about  their 
necks’  and  handing  the  other  end  of  the  rope  to 
a  stupid  and  clumsy  adventurer  who  now  felt 
free  to  go  as  far  as  he  liked.  .  .  ,1 

“On  the  whole,  these  new  documents  from 
Berlin  and  Vienna  place  Austria  in  a  much  more 


1  “American  Historical  Review,”  Vol.  25,  pp.  621-628. 

[68] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


unfavorable  light  than  hitherto.  They  likewise 
clear  the  German  Government  of  the  charge 
that  it  deliberately  plotted  or  wanted  the  war. 
Whatever  individual  militarists  or  Pan-German 
writers  may  have  wished  or  said,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  Chancellor  Bethmann-Hollweg,  as  the 
official  representative  of  German  foreign  policy, 
aimed  at  peace  and  better  relations  with  Ger¬ 
many’s  neighbors  in  the  period  just  before  the 
war.  ...  In  a  wider  sense,  however,  these  new 
documents  do  not  in  any  way  relieve  Germany 
of  the  main  responsibility.  She  is  responsible  for 
her  negligence  in  giving  Austria  a  free  hand  on 
July  5,  and  in  not  attempting  earlier  and  more 
vigorously  to  reassert  her  control  at  Vienna.  She 
is  responsible — and  here  the  responsibility  rests 
especially  on  the  Kaiser — in  deliberately  block¬ 
ing  several  peace  proposals.  ...  In  a  still  wider 
sense,  also,  Germany  is  responsible  because  one 
may  say  that  militarism  was  one  of  the  great 
causes  of  the  war.  ...  It  is  always  at  a  time  of 
diplomatic  crisis,  precisely  when  it  is  most  diffi¬ 
cult  for  diplomats  to  keep  their  heads  clear  and 
their  hands  free,  that  the  influence  of  militarism 


[69] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


makes  itself  felt  by  hastening  decisions  for  war, 
or  even  by  getting  the  upper  hand  altogether. 
And  for  the  growth  of  militarism  in  Europe,  no 
country  was  so  much  responsible  as  Germany.”1 

Concerning  the  immediate  causes  of  the  war, 
Mr.  Philip  Kerr,  for  several  years  Private  Sec¬ 
retary  to  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  says:  “What  was  it 
that  precipitated  the  Great  War?  .  .  .  It  was 
the  military  time-table.  No  sooner  did  Austria- 
Hungary  begin  to  mobilize  in  support  of  her  ulti¬ 
matum  to  Serbia  than  the  Russian  General  Staff 
felt  bound  to  do  the  same,  in  order  not  to  be 
caught  at  a  disadvantage  if  the  struggle  spread. 
And  no  sooner  did  Russia  begin  to  mobilize  than 
Germany  felt  that  she  must  do  so  also,  for  the 
plans  of  the  German  General  Staff  in  the  event 
of  a  European  war  were  based  upon  the  capacity 
of  the  German  army  to  mobilize  a  few  days  faster 
than  the  French  army,  and  to  crush  it  before  the 
Russians  could  take  the  field.  Hence  the  frantic 
telegrams  of  the  Kaiser  to  the  Czar,  imploring 
and  commanding  him  to  countermand  the  mobili¬ 
zation,  once  he  realized,  when  it  was  too  late, 


1  “American  Historical  Review,”  Vol.  26,  pp.  51-53. 
[70] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

where  the  policy  of  the  ultimatum  was  hurrying 
with  breakneck  speed. 

“Whether  the  Kaiser  or  any  other  responsible 
man  ever  deliberately  pressed  the  button  to  start 
a  general  European  war,  I  don’t  know.  Person¬ 
ally,  I  doubt  it.  It  was  the  terrible  military  time¬ 
table,  the  inevitable  outcome  of  Prussian  mili¬ 
tarism  and  the  division  of  Europe  into  a  number 
of  rival  and  separate  national  states,  which  made 
it  almost  impossible  to  stop  the  war  once  the 
first  fatal  step  of  mobilization  had  been  taken. 
The  Czar  could  not  countermand  mobilization 
unless  Austria-Hungary  countermanded  it.  And 
neither  Berlin  nor  Vienna  would  countermand, 
after  the  fatal  ultimatum  to  Serbia,  because  to 
do  so  would  have  meant  an  abject  humiliation 
for  the  Central  Powers  far  worse  than  that  of 
Agadir.”1 

With  regard  to  the  responsibility  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  Czar  and  his  generals,  Professor  S.  B.  Fay 
has  summarized  the  results  of  his  examination  of 
the  available  data  as  follows:2  “(1)  About  11 

1  Philip  Kerr  and  Lionel  Curtis,  “The  Prevention  of  War,”  pp. 
23,  24.  Italics  mine. 

2  “American  Historical  Review,”  Vol.  26,  pp.  249-251. 

[71] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


P.  M.  on  July  29,  Russian  ‘partial  mobilization’ 
was  in  full  swing.  (2)  This  ‘partial  mobiliza¬ 
tion5  had  been  caused  by  Austria’s  refusal  of 
‘direct  conversations’  and  by  her  declaration  of 
war  on  Serbia.  (3)  The  Tsar,  influenced  by  the 
Kaiser’s  telegram,  made  a  serious  effort,  though 
perhaps  one  impracticable  on  technical  considera¬ 
tions,  to  stop  mobilization  of  some  kind.  ( 4 )  But 
the  Tsar  was  flatly  disobeyed  and  deceived  by  the 
Russian  militarists,  who  thereby  rendered  futile 
the  Kaiser’s  efforts  to  check  Russian  military 
measures  until  he  could  effect  a  settlement  by 
his  mediation  at  Vienna  .  .  .  Germany’s  mobili¬ 
zation,  on  the  other  hand,  was  directly  caused  by 
that  of  Russia.” 

In  1917  the  Russian  General  Sukhomlinov 
boasted:  “I  knew  that  the  responsibility  rested 
on  me  and  I  gave  orders  that  mobilization  should 
not  be  suspended  .  .  .  On  the  next  morning,  I 
lied  to  His  Majesty  .  .  .  On  this  day  I  nearly 
lost  my  reason.  I  knew  that  mobilization  was  in 
full  swing,  and  that  it  was  impossible  to  stop  it. 
Fortunately,  on  the  same  day  the  Tsar  was  con¬ 
vinced  afresh,  and  I  was  thanked  for  the  good 

[72] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 

execution  of  mobilization;  otherwise  I  should 
have  been  in  jail  long  ago.”1 

On  December  23,  1920,  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
said:  “The  more  one  reads  memoirs  and  books 
written  in  the  various  countries  of  what  happened 
before  the  first  of  August,  1914,  the  more  one 
realizes  that  no  one  at  the  head  of  affairs  quite 
meant  war  at  that  stage.  It  was  something  into 
which  they  glided,  or  rather  staggered  and 
stumbled,  perhaps  through  folly;  and  a  discus¬ 
sion,  I  have  no  doubt,  would  have  averted  it.” 

More  recently  Mr.  Lloyd  George  has  written : 
“The  more  one  examines,  in  the  growing  calm, 
the  events  of  July,  1914,  the  more  one  is  im¬ 
pressed  with  the  shrinking  of  the  nominal  rulers 
of  the  attacking  empires  as  they  approached  the 
abyss,  and  with  the  relentless  driving  onward  of 
the  military  organization  behind  these  terror- 
stricken  dummies.”2 

In  this  connection  Mr.  G.  Lowes  Dickinson, 
a  distinguished  English  writer,  says:  “To  under¬ 
stand  the  action  of  those  who  had  power  in  Ger- 

1  “American  Historical  Review/’  Vol.  26,  p.  249. 

2  David  Lloyd  George,  “Where  Are  We  Going  ?”  p.  52. 

[73] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


many  during  the  critical  days  it  is  necessary  to 
bear  in  mind  all  that  I  have  brought  into  relief  in 
the  preceding  pages :  the  general  situation  which 
grouped  the  Powers  of  the  Entente  against  those 
of  the  Triple  Alliance ;  the  armaments  and 
counter-armaments;  the  colonial  and  economic 
rivalry;  the  racial  and  national  problems  in 
South-East  Europe ;  and  the  long  series  of  previ¬ 
ous  crises,  in  each  case  tided  over,  but  leaving 
behind,  every  one  of  them,  a  legacy  of  fresh  mis¬ 
trust  and  fear,  which  made  every  new  crisis  worse 
than  the  one  before.  I  do  not  palliate  the  respon¬ 
sibility  of  Germany  for  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 
But  that  responsibility  is  embedded  in  and  con¬ 
ditioned  by  a  responsibility  deeper  and  more 
general — the  responsibility  of  all  the  Powers 
alike  for  the  European  anarchy.”1 

In  another  place  Mr.  Dickinson  also  says: 
“You  can,  of  course,  say — as  became  the  fashion 
when  the  Great  War  broke  out — that  Germany 
had  been  preparing  not  only  war  but  THE 
WAR  for  ten  years,  forty  years,  a  hundred  and 
fifty  years !  There  is  nothing  men  and  historians 


a“The  European  Anarchy,”  pp.  128,  129. 
[74] 


WHY  WAS  THE  WAR  FOUGHT? 


will  not  say,  and  even  think,  when  their  passions 
are  excited.  But  the  fact  is  that  all  that  talk  is 
sheer  nonsense.”1 

Ex-Prime  Minister  Nitti  of  Italy  has  written 
as  follows:  “An  honest  and  thorough  examina¬ 
tion  of  all  the  diplomatic  documents,  all  the 
agreements  and  relations  of  pre-war  days,  com¬ 
pels  me  to  declare  solemnly  that  the  responsibil¬ 
ity  for  the  war  does  not  lie  solely  on  the  defeated 
countries.  .  .  .  When  our  countries  were  en¬ 
gaged  in  the  struggle,  and  we  were  at  grips  with 
a  dangerous  enemy,  it  was  our  duty  to  keep  up 
the  morale  of  our  people  and  to  paint  our  adver¬ 
saries  in  the  darkest  colors,  laying  on  their  shoul¬ 
ders  all  the  blame  and  responsibility.  But  after 
such  a  war,  now  that  imperial  Germany  has 
fallen,  it  is  absurd  to  maintain  that  the  respon¬ 
sibility  belongs  to  Germany  alone.”2 

1  “War :  Its  Nature,  Cause  and  Cure,”  p.  68. 

2  “The  Wreck  of  Europe,”  pp.  31,  80,  81. 


[75] 


Chapter  II 


WHAT  DID  THE  WORLD  WAR 
ACCOMPLISH? 

In  the  previous  chapter  evidence  was  cited 
which  revealed  clearly  the  wide  divergence  be¬ 
tween  the  professed  aims  and  the  actual  purposes 
of  the  Allied  leaders  in  the  Great  War.  The 
rank  and  file  of  people  in  all  the  nations  accepted 
at  face  value  the  idealistic  expressions  of  their 
leaders.  There  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  the 
vast  majority  of  people  in  all  the  belligerent 
countries  sincerely  thought  they  were  fighting  in 
defence  of  home,  freedom  and  the  higher  values 
of  life. 

In  attempting  to  evaluate  the  results  of  the 
Great  War,  we  must,  therefore,  seek  light  upon 
two  questions,  viz.,  to  what  extent  were  the 
Allied  leaders  successful  in  accomplishing  their 
real  purposes  in  the  war?  and  secondly,  to  what 

[76] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


extent  were  the  common  people  successful  in 
achieving  the  ends  for  which  they  fought? 

(1)  Allied  Gains  of  the  War 
The  crippling  of  the  economic  power  of  Ger¬ 
many  was  one  of  the  great  objectives  of  the 
Allied  leaders.  The  various  sections  of  the 
Treaty  of  Versailles  reveal  the  thoroughness  with 
which  this  task  was  undertaken.  In  this  connec¬ 
tion,  Mr.  John  Maynard  Keynes,  British  repre¬ 
sentative  at  the  Peace  Conference,  says:  “The 
German  economic  system  as  it  existed  before  the 
war  depended  on  three  main  factors:  1.  Over¬ 
seas  commerce  as  represented  by  her  mercantile 
marine,  her  colonies,  her  foreign  investments,  her 
exports,  and  the  overseas  connections  of  her  mer¬ 
chants;  2.  The  exploitation  of  her  coal  and  iron 
and  the  industries  built  upon  them ;  3.  Her  trans¬ 
port  and  tariff  system.  Of  these  the  first,  while 
not  the  least  important,  was  certainly  the  most 
vulnerable.  The  Treaty  aims  at  the  systematic 
destruction  of  all  three ,  hut  principally  of  the 
first  two”1 

1  “The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,”  pp.  65,  66.  Italics 
mine. 


[77] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

The  first  of  these  assets  was  almost  completely 
obliterated  by  the  Treaty.  Germany  was  com¬ 
pelled  to  give  up  all  the  vessels  of  her  mercantile 
marine  exceeding  1,600  tons  gross,  and  a  con¬ 
siderable  percentage  of  her  smaller  fishing  boats 
and  trawlers.  She  was  compelled  to  cede  to  the 
Allies  “all  her  rights  and  title  over  her  overseas 
possessions.”  The  Allies  also  asserted  the  right 
to  expropriate  the  private  property  of  Germans 
in  the  former  colonies  and  in  Alsace-Lorraine, 
and  under  certain  circumstances  even  in  neutral 
countries.  The  cumulative  effect  of  these  pro¬ 
visions,  according  to  Mr.  Keynes,  “is  to  deprive 
Germany  of  everything  she  possessed  outside  her 
own  frontiers  as  laid  down  in  the  Treaty.”1 

With  regard  to  the  coal  resources  of  Ger¬ 
many  the  Treaty  is  equally  drastic.  The  coal 
mines  of  the  Saar  Basin  were  ceded  outright  to 
France.  A  considerable  percentage  of  the  best 
coal  land  of  Upper  Silesia  was  awarded  to 
Poland.  Furthermore,  Germany  is  obligated  to 
furnish  a  maximum  of  45  million  tons  annually 


1  “The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,”  p.  79. 

[78] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


for  five  years  to  France,  Belgium  and  Italy  and 
a  decreasing  amount  for  another  five  years. 

By  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty,  Germany  lost 
75  per  cent  of  her  iron  ore,  the  main  sources  of 
zinc,  important  sources  of  potash,  all  commercial 
cables  and  large  areas  of  agricultural  land.  Con¬ 
trol  of  Germany’s  main  river  communications 
and  traffic,  together  with  her  foreign  trade,  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Allies.  In  this  con¬ 
nection,  President  Wilson  in  his  St.  Louis  ad¬ 
dress,  on  September  5,  1919,  said:  “That  Rep¬ 
aration  Commission  can  determine  the  currents 
of  trade,  the  conditions  of  credit,  of  international 
credit;  it  can  determine  how  much  Germany  is 
going  to  buy,  where  it  is  going  to  buy,  and  how 
it  is  going  to  pay  for  it.” 

Finally,  after  destroying  almost  completely 
Germany’s  power  overseas  and  having  deprived 
her  of  a  considerable  proportion  of  her  coal,  iron 
and  other  raw  materials,  the  amount  due  for 
reparation,  or  war  indemnity,  was  set  at  the  stu¬ 
pendous  sum  of  $32,000,000,000,  an  amount 
equivalent  to  more  than  one-third  of  the  entire 
national  wealth  of  Germany  before  the  war. 

[79] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


“Thus  the  Economic  Clauses  of  the  Treaty,” 
says  Mr.  Keynes,  “are  comprehensive,  and  little 
has  been  overlooked  which  might  impoverish 
Germany  now  or  obstruct  her  development  in 
future.”1  Ex-Premier  Nitti  of  Italy  says  in  this 
connection:  “Thus  Germany  has  lost  the  char¬ 
acter  of  a  sovereign  State,  and  is  controlled  in 
every  act  of  its  domestic  life,  its  economics  and 
its  finances,  as  no  country  in  Europe  ever  was 
before — not  even  Turkey,  when  in  the  lowest 
depths  of  economic  servitude.”2 

It  is  apparent  that  the  Allied  leaders  were 
highly  successful  in  their  efforts  to  crush  Ger¬ 
many’s  economic  power.  There  are,  however, 
grave  reasons  for  doubting  whether  this  will  ulti¬ 
mately  prove  to  be  a  real  gain.  Evidence  along 
this  line  is  cited  in  a  subsequent  section. 

In  the  Allied  countries,  leaders  and  people 
alike  agreed  that  the  major  objective  of  the  war 
was  the  overthrow  of  Prussian  militarism  and 
autocracy.  That  these  were  a  most  serious 
menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world  cannot  be 
denied.  At  this  point  the  war  was  an  unqualified 

1“The  Economic  Consequences  of  the  Peace,”  pp.  Ill,  112. 

2  “The  Decadence  of  Europe,”  pp.  124,  125. 

[80] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


success.  The  Hohenzollerns  have  been  deposed, 
the  once  mighty  German  Army  has  been  reduced 
to  a  mere  police  force  of  100,000  men,  almost 
totally  disarmed  so  far  as  the  major  weapons  of 
modern  warfare  are  concerned,  and  the  German 
Navy  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 

The  peoples  of  the  earth  were  also  greatly 
benefited  by  the  fall  of  the  Hapsburgs  in  Austria 
and  the  Romanoffs  in  Russia.  In  the  overthrow 
of  these  three  great  sovereigns,  autocracy  was 
dealt  a  severe  blow.  Sufficient  time  has  not  yet 
elapsed  to  make  possible  an  accurate  evaluation 
of  the  gains  for  mankind  as  a  result  of  the  pass¬ 
ing  of  these  autocracies.  It  may  be  that  future 
historians  will  agree  that  the  destruction  of  the 
power  of  these  ancient  houses  was  one  of  the 
great  events  of  the  century. 

The  liberation  of  many  millions  of  oppressed 
peoples  from  political  bondage  was  another  great 
gain.  To  the  citizens  of  Poland,  Czechoslovakia 
and  other  liberated  regions,  the  achievement  of 
freedom  has  made  an  enormous  difference  and 
is  for  them  the  supreme  benefit  of  the  war. 

It  is  too  soon  to  evaluate  accurately  the  gains 

[81] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

from  the  smashing  of  many  ancient  traditions 
and  the  jolting  of  peoples  and  institutions  out  of 
deep  ruts.  The  emergency  of  war  was  a  great 
incentive  to  inventive  genius  and  the  world  has 
been  permanently  enriched  by  some  of  the  dis¬ 
coveries  and  inventions  made  under  this  stimulus. 
Unmistakable  evidence  was  furnished  of  the 
latent  capacities  of  heroism  and  sacrificial  devo¬ 
tion  to  great  causes  on  the  part  of  multitudes 
of  people  in  all  lands.  Millions  of  people  were 
at  least  for  the  time  being  raised  to  new  heights 
of  unselfish  living,  where  personal  comforts  and 
desires  were  subordinated  to  the  common  good. 
During  these  days  many  men  and  women  gained 
at  least  temporarily  a  new  and  vital  religious 
experience  and  not  a  few  lives  were  permanently 
changed  for  the  better. 

( 2 )  Losses  in  Life 

The  appalling  cost  of  the  war  in  human  life  is 
shown  in  the  table  on  pages  84  and  85. 1 

It  is  not  possible  for  the  human  mind  to  com¬ 
prehend  the  significance  of  ten  million  men  and 

*E.  L.  Bogart,  “Direct  and  Indirect  Costs  of  the  War,”  p.  272. 
The  error  in  addition  appears  in  the  original  table. 

[82] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


boys  killed  in  the  war.  All  of  us  have  stood  in 
line  for  hours  as  we  watched  some  huge  pro¬ 
cession.  No  one  of  us,  however,  has  ever  seen 
a  procession  of  a  million  men.  A  parade  of  ten 
million  soldiers,  marching  from  daylight  to  dark, 
ten  abreast,  with  each  line  only  two  seconds  be¬ 
hind  another,  would  require  46  days  to  pass  a 
given  point. 

As  ghastly  as  these  figures  appear,  they  do  not 
tell  the  whole  story.  Of  the  5,983,600  men  listed 
as  “prisoners  or  missing,”  a  considerable  per¬ 
centage  were  undoubtedly  killed  in  action.  It 
was  officially  estimated  in  England  that  60  per 
cent  of  the  missing  were  probably  dead.  The 
estimate  in  Canada  was  56  per  cent  and  in 
France  40  per  cent.  If,  therefore,  half  those 
listed  as  “prisoners  or  missing”  be  presumed  to 
be  dead  the  total  death  toll  is  increased  by 
2,991,800.1 

The  above  figures  include  only  the  casualties 
among  the  men  under  arms.  There  was  in  addi¬ 
tion  a  very  heavy  loss  of  life  among  civilians  as  a 
direct  result  of  the  war,  including  deaths  from 

*See  E.  L.  Bogart,  “Direct  and  Indirect  Costs  of  the  War,” 
pp.  271-274. 

[83] 


Casualties  of  the  Great  World  War1 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


Co 

** 

CO 


©>©*i>©OO©OO©OC0 


Co 

*1 


OOOOOOOOO 
05  05*©©©©©©©©* 

^^cooaoocoic 

©»00‘CHOHTfi 
^  lO  CO  H  H 

©*  H 


©* 

©* 

A© 

•v 

GO 

*© 

© 

T? 


©  ^ 

Co  © 

<o 


*«. 

© 


© 


O  TP  O  O  o 

o  ©  ©  o  os 

O  CO  O  O  rH 


o  o  * 
o  o  * 
o  o 


#S  •»  »s 

00  H  ^  O  O  00 
Tp  Tf  i©  CO  o  G? 
H  r?  00  ©  ^  H 

•s  *v 

rH  ©*  GO 


o  ©  i> 
o  o  o 

O  O  CD 

•S  *V 

O  ©I 

CO  rH 


?> 

05 

•* 

CD 

r-( 

*© 

•v 

00 


CD 

P3 

£ 

O 

Ph 

ft 

H 

HH 

►3 

3 

<1 

w 

w 

H 


Co 

S  $2 

O  55 
£ 

t§  R 


I  1 

o  © 

£Q 


oooooooooo* 

0^00000000* 

0i>00000000 

G0i>0000©^00i© 

^rHOOO^©^OrH 

©  i>  O  *©  CO  G* 


^hPhO^OOG01>OOO 

O04©0000^r-H000 

©*^00©rH©G0rH©OC0 

i>i>i>G*i>t>-J>05*©'31* 

©  ©  G*  ©  O  O  O  GO  rH 
rHQO^*>*©G**>CO 

rH  ©* 


O 

r* 

*> 

GO 

HfH 

CO 


05 

rH 

*© 

•V 

00 

GO 

05 

•s 

© 


w 

fei  '3 

^  «  4-> 

^5  +f 

&  «i  ^ 


« 


8  « 


* 


a 

•  p— i 

sP  * 


* 


g  !  B  *  ce 

.1 .2  g  8  3  q 

*bnlo  S  D  -+j  c3 


[84] 


§2 

S$  «4J  5.2J  J,S,2  a  .  ,  „ 

£  -1  $  %  i-tjsp-e  I  s  t;  g, 

POfetfwCQcoPHOPH^ 


c3 

+-> 

O 


r  .□ 
cti 


E.  L.  Bogart,  * ‘Direct  and  Indirect  Costs  of  the  War,  p.  272.  The  error  in  addition  appears  in  the  original 


Casualties  of  the  Great  World  War  ( Continued )* 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


Co 

05i 

OI 

O 

1-H 

*o 

00 

v» 

.8 

OI 

O 

GO 

o> 

i> 

<55 

8 

•  <s> 
Co 
Co 

LO 

•v 

O 

♦v 

i> 

00 

o 

•s 

O 

•<?* 

©* 

GO 

GO 

o 

o 

Co 

e 

i> 

i> 

O 

t-H 

rH 

GO 

GO 

O 

o 

CO 

GO 

GO 

05 


ctf 

G 

*  H 

bo 

•  t-H 

Vi 

o 

(D 

£ 


.Co  ^ 

•g  ^ 

8 

£ 


5*. 

*8 


GO  O  O  05 
■^  ©  ©  05 
>- 1  O  O  GO 

GO  O  O  O* 
CO  *G  O  O 
H  H  GO  X 

OI  CM 


©* 

00 

•s 


05 

GO 

o 

*N 

©I 

o 

o 


m 

Vi 

ci 

<5 

a 

8* 

G 

O 


X) 

XJ 

aS 

G 


O0  *55 

„  s  ^ 

w  *S  S 

§  fej 


A 

« 

H 

£ 

W 

O 


w 

w 

H 


§  C3 

O  <55 

.  8  G$ 


8 

<3 


©  ©  ©*  © 
O  O  i>  o 
O  O  i>  o 


»N  *s  *s 


O  O  i>  o 
0*000 
CO  GO  H  GO 


iv5o 

^  O  Tf< 

©  ©  ©i  ©> 
rH  O  05  o* 

*\  *\  *\  #> 

rH  rH  CO  i—l 
rH  rH  GO  O 
CO  05  rf  H 


S'© 

f-i 

a 

bo 

A 
=3 

■S' 

S  S  >>*£ 

g  ‘E  5?  £ 

o  o  of  S3 


CM 

i> 

i> 

•N 

*o 

00 

«% 

©* 


CM 

*o 

©I 

•v 

o 

co 

o 

GO 


c3 

+-> 

H 


©* 

rH 

*o 

•V 

*©> 

05 

©I 

CO 


I> 

•V 

CO 

05 

05 

•\ 

05 


c3 

4J 

O 

H 

G3 

01 

a 

!H 

O 


o 

V 

o 

>» 

V 

aS 

G 

O 


<u 

CG 

X 

W 


rd 

c 

as 

<u 

s 

o 

x: 

-t-> 

a$ . 

in 

rG 


aS 

'5 

o 

*0 

<u 

a 

a 


X) 

<v 


O 


<u 
in 
O 

*G 

+j 

X 
G 
as 

in 

X 

*  -4— * 

.§  S 

•4-<  03 

73 

G 

c/j 

as 

o 


I 

a> 


O'! 

W 

Csj 

a 


I 

.S  p£ 


05 

rG 

-v» 


m 

-v> 

w 


-M 

•  h 

i  g 

J3H 

'o  X) 

<->  G 

rt  be  ^ 
N  G 
G  -G  O 
(UT)  <D 


as 

G 

as  ° 

<U  o 

U 

.S  m  w 


G 

<G 


(J  05  <U 

Jfi’B’B  - 

o  g;  g;  ” 
g  o  y 

•*■  •+—• H-coo# 


<u  S3 
u  VG 

«  Q 

l— I  v* 

~  CV* 

_i__j 

o.s-e 

£*0  So 

w  ^3  m 

5  G  ^ 


o  uj 


X  C 


rH 

G 

4-> 


[85] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


war  diseases  and  pestilences,  massacres,  bom¬ 
bardments,  air  raids,  submarine  attacks,  deporta¬ 
tions,  exposure,  malnutrition,  starvation,  etc. 
After  carefully  examining  a  great  mass  of  evi¬ 
dence,  Professor  Bogart  says:  “In  conclusion  it 
may  fairly  be  estimated  that  the  loss  of  civilian 
life  due  directly  to  war,  or  to  causes  induced  by 
war,  equals,  if  indeed  it  does  not  exceed,  that 
suffered  by  the  armies  in  the  field.  In  view  of 
the  facts  cited,  such  an  estimate  must  be  regarded 
as  conservative.”1  This  would  add  13,000,000  to 
the  total  death  toll  of  the  war. 

The  number  of  children  left  fatherless  by  the 
war  is  appalling.  In  France  it  was  officially 
estimated  that  887,500  French  children  lost  their 
fathers  in  the  war.  Dr.  Folks  has  estimated 
that  512,000  Italian  children  were  left  fatherless. 
If  the  ratio  of  French  war  orphans  to  French 
dead  holds  true  of  the  other  nations,  6,500,000 
children  were  left  fatherless  by  the  war.  If  the 
Italian  ratio  is  used  this  number  will  be  nearly; 
doubled.  Since  the  French  birth  rate  is  among 
the  lowest  and  the  Italian  is  among  the  highest, 

1  See  E.  L.  Bogert,  “Direct  and  Indirect  Costs  of  the  War,”  p.  282. 

[86] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


the  actual  number  of  war  orphans  is  probably  in 
the  neighborhood  of  9, 000,000/ 

In  France  the  Pension  Office  had  formal 
knowledge  of  585,000  war  widows  on  Armistice 
day.  The  total  number  was  undoubtedly  much 
larger  than  this.  The  French  marriage  rate  is 
lower  than  in  most  countries.  It  is,  therefore, 
probably  conservative  to  estimate  that  from  40 
to  45  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  men  killed 
were  survived  by  widows.  This  means  that  ap¬ 
proximately  5,000,000  women  were  left  widows 
by  the  war.2 

Human  misery  and  actual  loss  of  life  were 
enormously  increased  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
millions  of  people  were  forced  by  invasion  to  flee 
from  home.  In  this  connection,  Dr.  Folks  says : 
“We  have  seen  them  walking  footsore,  burden¬ 
bearing,  falling  by  the  wayside.  We  know  of 
babies  born  on  the  way,  and  of  mothers  carrying 
new-born  babies  for  miles.  We  have  seen  refu¬ 
gees  packed  by  main  force  into  stifling  freight- 
cars  and  slowly  hauled,  with  many  long  inter¬ 
ruptions,  somewhere  into  the  interior,  hungry, 

1  Homer  Folks,  “The  Human  Costs  of  the  War,”  pp.  142,  195. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  141. 

[87] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


filthy,  weary,  depressed.  This  happened  to 
1,250,000  people  in  Belgium,  to  2,000,000  in 
France,  to  500,000  in  Italy,  to  300,000  in  Greece, 
to,  say,  300,000  in  Serbia,  to  2,000,000  Armen¬ 
ians  (except  that  they  walked  out  into  the  desert 
and  most  of  them  to  death),  to  400,000  in  East 
Prussia,  to  huge  but  unknown  numbers  in  Rou- 
mania,  Russia,  and  Austria — all  told,  to  some 
10,000,000  people.”1 

One  of  the  most  serious  costs  of  the  war  is 
found  in  its  biological  aspects.  The  13,000,000 
dead  soldiers  included  an  extraordinarily  high 
percentage  of  the  best  manhood  of  the  nations. 
The  weaklings  and  degenerates  were  rejected. 
The  strongest,  the  keenest  and  the  most  upright, 
lost  their  lives  in  appalling  numbers.  It  is  too 
soon  to  measure  the  cost  of  this  sacrifice  of  the 
best  young  life  of  the  world. 

Let  us  now  gather  together  in  a  comprehensive 
summary  the  outstanding  human  costs  of  the 
war: 

'  10,000,000  Known  dead  soldiers 
3,000,000  Presmned  dead  soldiers 

1  Homer  Folks,  “The  Human  Costs  of  the  War,”  pp.  254,  255. 

[88] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 

13,000,000  Dead  civilians 

20,000,000  Wounded 
3,000,000  Prisoners 
9,000,000  War  orphans 
5,000,000  War  widows 

10,000,000  Refugees. 

/ 

This  summary  may  be  read  in  less  than  sixty 
seconds,  but  no  human  mind  is  capable  of  grasp¬ 
ing  its  meaning  and  significance.  Each  one  of 
us  knows  something  of  the  tragedy  of  death  in 
the  home,  a  few  of  us  are  frequently  called  to 
console  bereaved  families,  but  no  one  of  us  has 
sufficient  imagination  to  think  in  terms  of  mil¬ 
lions  of  dead  men. 

The  whole  world  was  shocked  and  stunned 
when  the  Lusitania  went  down  with  the  loss  of  a 
thousand  lives.  To  equal  the  twenty-six  millions 
dead  in  the  war,  it  would  be  necessary  to  sink  a 
Lusitania  every  day  for  seventy  years,  or  one 
every  week  beginning  nearly  a  century  before 
the  discovery  of  America  by  Columbus  and  con¬ 
tinuing  to  the  present  hour.  Or  to  express  it  in 
another  way,  the  average  loss  of  li^e  was  16,585 
for  each  of  the  1,567  days  the  war  lasted.  This 

[89] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


is  equivalent  to  blotting  out  every  breath  of  life 
in  a  city  the  size^of  Ithaca,  Marshalltown  or 
Billings  each  day  of  the  war;  or  destroying  every 
human  life  in  a  city  like  Berkeley,  Macon  or 
Atlantic  City  every  three  days  during  the  war. 

We  can  enter  into  the  sorrow  of  one  widow 
and  visualize  the  loss  of  one  orphan,  but  millions 
of  widows  and  orphans  are  beyond  our  powers 
of  comprehension.  We  can  suffer  with  one  in¬ 
jured  friend,  but  our  sympathies  are  too  narrow 
to  include  millions  of  suffering  men.  We  can 
measure  the  human  cost  of  war  to  one  family, 
but  our  minds  are  too  feeble  to  grasp  its  meaning 
for  the  whole  of  mankind.  “The  harm  done  to 
the  white  races  by  the  war,”  says  Dr.  Folks,  “is 
unprecedented,  many-sided,  deep-seated,  incapa¬ 
ble  of  exact  measurement,  but  truly  terrifying.” 

(3)  Material  Losses  of  the  War 

It  is  now  possible  to  estimate  with  a  fair  de¬ 
gree  of  accuracy  the  direct  monetary  cost  of  the 
war.  Perhaps  the  most  comprehensive  studies 
in  this  regard  have  been  made  by  Professor 
Ernest  L.  Bogart,  and  published  by  the  Carnegie 
Endowment  for  International  Peace,  under  the 


Summary  of  the  Direct  Costs  of  the  War1 

Gross  Advances  to  Allies  Net  Cost 

United  States .  $32,080,266,968  $  9,455,014,125  $  22,625,252,843 

Great  Britain .  44,029,011,868  8,695,000,000  35,334,011,868 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


G* 

O 

O 

O 

o 

o 

O 

© 

i> 

o 

O 

O 

pH 

05 

o 

o 

O 

© 

O 

GO 

o 

o 

05 

O 

CO 

o 

© 

•s 

•V 

•v 

•s 

•* 

•v 

GO 

G* 

o 

GO 

i> 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

© 

rH 

GO 

AO 

05 

CO 

i> 

o 

CO 

o 

© 

00 

AO 

05 

05 

CO 

Hfl 

o 

05 

Gi 

pH 

•V 

•v 

•* 

•s 

*\ 

GO 

*o 

GO 

GO 

GO 

O 

*o 

G^ 

AO 

GO 

05 

CO 

05 

rH 

CO 

05 

G^ 

HP 

G* 

AO 

05 

CO 

CO 

G^ 

© 

•v 

•V 

•v 

•V 

#\ 

•V 

o* 

G^ 

Gi 

G* 

rH 

GO 

AG 

G* 

rH 

se- 

r> 

GO 

o 

Gi 

G* 

© 

© 

09- 

o 

• 

AO 

© 

• 

© 

o 

• 

G? 

o 

• 

© 

o 

• 

rH 

o 

• 

© 

• 

• 

o 

• 

h 

o 

• 

© 

o 

• 

rH 

o 

• 

© 

G* 

• 

G* 

o 

• 

© 

• 

•s. 

• 

i> 

• 

i> 

AO 

• 

AO 

• 

05 

i> 

• 

i> 

AO 

• 

CO 

GO 

• 

G0 

•v 

• 

• 

rH 

• 

• 

05 

rH 

«©■ 

G* 

ce- 

• 

• 

G* 

^e- 

G* 

o 

O 

O 

G* 

o 

O 

© 

© 

i> 

o 

o 

O 

rH 

G* 

o 

o 

o 

© 

o 

00 

o 

o 

05 

CO 

o 

CO 

© 

© 

•v 

*v 

*v 

•s 

•V 

•N 

GO 

G* 

o 

00 

O 

o 

o 

© 

© 

rH 

00 

AO 

05 

co 

05 

o 

CO 

© 

© 

00 

1- 

05 

05 

GO 

CO 

o 

05 

G* 

rH 

•v 

•s 

•v 

•s 

•s 

GO 

G* 

GO 

GO 

GO 

?> 

o 

G^ 

AO 

GO 

05 

pH 

05 

rH 

CO 

GO 

AO 

G^ 

pH 

GO 

AO 

05 

00 

rH 

CO 

G* 

© 

•s 

•v 

•\ 

•* 

AO 

G* 

G* 

G* 

G* 

pH 

CO 

AO 

rH 

€©• 

O 

€©■ 

O 

Gi 

G^ 

GO 

© 

SO- 

05 

o 

•v 

GO 

CO 

♦v 

GO 

GO 

GO 

CO 

GO 

rH 

ce- 


»o 

G* 


rH 

G* 

•V 

GS 

O 

G* 

G* 

«©• 


G* 

G* 

<3* 

rH 

to 

CO 

•% 

CO 

o 

•v 

GO 

O 

G* 


O 

SH 


w 

r-S 

tn 


fH 

PQ 

«+H 

O 


rJl 

O 


<D 

H-i 

s 

<D 

4-> 

3 

W 


« 

^  •  rH  _  rH 

4->  £  CO  0> 

0)  g  O  +3 


o 

H-> 

£ 


c3 
aU 

pH 

c3  -5 

sjdPQ 

S  T3 
£ 
o3 

3  aj  >j 
2  *r!  o 

S  rg 

Ph  2 

o  2  3 

0<dH 


c$ 

4J 

Eh 


c3 

-H 

£ 

£ 

c3 

Ph 

o 


VO 

CM 

dn* 


[91] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

title,  “Direct  and  Indirect  Costs  of  the  Great 
World  War.”  The  table  on  the  preceding  page 
is  taken  from  this  book. 

The  total  indirect  costs  of  the  war  have  been 
summarized  by  Professor  Bogart  as  follows:1 

Capitalized  value  of  lives  lost: 

Soldiers .  $  33,551,276,280 

Civilians .  33,551,276,280 

Property  losses: 

On  land .  29 , 960 , 000 , 000 

Shipping  and  cargo .  6 , 800 , 000 , 000 

Loss  of  production .  45 , 000 , 000 , 000 

War  relief .  1 , 000 , 000 , 000 

Loss  to  neutrals .  1,750, 000 , 000 

Total  indirect  costs .  $151 ,612,542,560 

Total  direct  costs,  net .  186 , 333 , 637 , 097 

> Grand  total  costs  of  the  war  $337,946,179,657 

Here  also  we  are  dealing  with  figures  whose 
magnitude  surpasses  our  ability  to  comprehend. 
The  total  cost  of  the  war  is  equivalent  to  $20,000 
for  every  hour  since  Christ  was  born.  The  aver¬ 
age  daily  cost  of  the  war  was  more  than  215 
millions,  or  9  millions  per  hour.  That  is  to  say, 
one  hour’s  cost  of  the  war  exceeded  the  amount 

1  P.  299.  The  error  in  addition  appears  in  the  original  table. 

[92] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


expended  on  the  public  schools  of  Detroit  or 
Cleveland  during  an  entire  year,  and  is  equal  to 
the  endowment  of  a  great  university  like  the 
University  of  California.  The  total  amount 
raised  by  all  the  churches  in  the  United  States 
last  year  is  less  than  three  days’  cost  of  the  war. 
The  total  amount  contributed  by  Americans  and 
Canadians  to  foreign  missions  last  year  is  less 
than  five  hours’  cost  of  the  war.  Six  hours’  cost 
of  the  war  is  more  than  the  total  operating  ex¬ 
penses  of  all  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Asso¬ 
ciations  in  the  world  for  an  entire  year.  To  earn 
an  amount  equal  to  one  day’s  cost  of  the  war, 
2,150  workers,  at  an  annual  wage  of  $2,500  each, 
would  be  compelled  to  labor  for  40  years. 

There  is  still  another  phase  of  the  economic 
loss  which  must  be  taken  into  account,  viz.,  the 
effects  of  the  war  upon  the  industrial  machine  of 
Europe.  The  population  of  Europe,  according 
to  Herbert  Hoover,  is  at  least  100  millions 
greater  than  can  be  supported  without  imports. 
These  surplus  millions  are  dependent  upon  the 
excess  of  exports  over  imports  for  their  liveli¬ 
hood.  Therefore,  an  efficient  industrial  machine 


[93] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


must  operate  continuously  if  the  standard  of  life 
is  to  be  maintained.  Prior  to  the  war  the  various 
countries  of  Europe  were  not  independent  eco¬ 
nomic  units,  but  were  parts  of  one  vast  industrial 
machine  embracing  that  entire  continent.  The 
various  currencies  were  maintained  on  a  stable 
gold  basis  and  flowed  freely  throughout  Europe. 
There  was  a  minimum  of  interference  at  fron¬ 
tiers,  and  tariffs  were  not,  as  a  rule,  excessive. 
Nearly  300  million  persons  lived  within  the  three 
Empires  of  Russia,  Germany  and  Austria-Hun¬ 
gary.  In  the  economic  life  of  Europe  Germany 
occupied  the  central  position.  Upon  the  pros¬ 
perity  of  Germany  depended  the  prosperity  of 
the  rest  of  Europe. 

Then  came  the  war.  Instantly  the  whole  eco¬ 
nomic  life  of  Europe  was  thrown  into  confusion. 
Exports  and  imports  between  vast  populations 
ceased  entirely.  Millions  of  men  and  women 
were  taken  from  productive  pursuits  and  placed 
at  the  work  of  destruction.  Four  years  of  war 
on  an  unprecedented  scale  placed  an  enormous 
strain  upon  the  industrial  and  financial  life  of  all 
the  belligerent  nations.  This  was  followed  by 

[94] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


the  collapse  of  Russia  and  Austria-Hungary  and 
the  destruction  of  the  economic  power  of  Ger¬ 
many.  New  states  sprang  into  existence.  The 
boundary  lines  of  Europe  were  greatly  length¬ 
ened.  Nationalistic  feelings  were  raised  to  new 
heights  and  each  country  hedged  itself  about  with 
tariff  walls  and  customs  barriers.  Taxation  shot 
up  by  leaps  and  bounds. 

After  a  period  of  artificial  prosperity  made 
possible  by  inroads  into  capital  and  natural  re¬ 
sources,  a  terrific  industrial  depression  swept 
over  the  whole  world.  Multitudes  of  customers 
were  impoverished.  This  was  followed  by  an 
enormous  decrease  in  production.  Famine  and 
plague  swept  over  Russia,  Poland,  Austria  and 
the  Near  East.  Millions  of  persons  were  kept 
alive  only  by  the  heroic  efforts  of  the  American 
Relief  Agency,  the  Quakers  and  other  societies. 
Tens  of  millions  of  able-bodied  men  were  unable 
to  find  work.  In  England  from  one  and  a 
quarter  millions  to  two  million  men  have  been 
supported  by  government  doles  during  the  past 
three  years.  Even  in  distant  United  States  the 
number  of  unemployed  rose  to  five  millions.  The 

[95] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


collapse  of  the  foreign  market  for  wheat  and 
cotton  caused  great  suffering  among  American 
farmers. 

Currencies  depreciated  in  value  at  an  extraor¬ 
dinarily  rapid  rate.  Nearly  300  millions  of 
people  in  Russia,  Germany,  Austria  and  Poland 
now  transact  their  daily  business  with  currency 
which  has  little  real  value.  The  writer,  during  a 
recent  visit  to  Europe,  witnessed  the  fall  of  the 
German  mark  from  100,000  to  the  dollar  to 
60,000,000  within  nine  weeks.  Prices  are  often 
doubled  and  trebled  within  an  hour.  Interna¬ 
tional  credits  have  been  thrown  into  the  utmost 
confusion. 

All  these  factors  combined  have  probably 
created  more  human  misery  than  was  occasioned 
by  shot  and  shell  during  the  war.  And  the  end 
of  this  terrible  chaos  is  not  in  sight.  The  avail¬ 
able  evidence  seems  to  indicate  that  conditions 
are  certain  to  become  worse  before  the  winter  is 
over.  Standards  of  living  are  being  demolished 
and  the  movement  for  the  abolition  of  poverty 
and  disease  has  been  set  back  a  century  and  more. 
Millions  of  relatively  innocent  men,  women  and 

[96] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


children  are  doomed  to  spend  their  entire  life¬ 
time  in  hard  toil  with  no  reward  save  hunger, 
deprivation  and  a  bare  existence,  A  whole  con¬ 
tinent  is  being  submerged. 

(4)  Moral  Losses  of  the  War 

The  moral  losses  of  the  war  are  not  as  easily 
measured  as  are  the  physical  and  material  losses. 
But  there  is  an  abundance  of  evidence  that  they 
are  disastrous. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  truth  is  the  first 
great  casualty  of  war.  Deceit  and  falsehood  are 
inherent  in  war.  Not  truth  but  expediency  is 
the  standard.  The  nature  and  extent  of  German 
war  propaganda  is  well  known  in  Allied  coun¬ 
tries.  It  was  one  of  the  chief  factors  in  produc¬ 
ing  a  feeling  of  revulsion  against  Germany,  and 
is  often  cited  as  one  of  the  reasons  why  the 
United  States  entered  the  war.  The  fact  of 
Germany’s  guilt  in  this  regard  is  too  well  authen¬ 
ticated  to  leave  any  room  for  doubt. 

What  the  citizens  of  Allied  countries  do  not 
realize  sufficiently  well,  however,  is  that  the 
people  of  Germany  were  equally  well  informed 

[97] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


concerning  the  war  propaganda  of  the  Allied 
governments.  Since  the  conclusion  of  the  war, 
several  books  have  been  written  by  Allied  secret 
service  men,  which  contain  information  concern¬ 
ing  this  propaganda.  Sir  Campbell  Stuart,  K. 
B.  E.,  has  published  a  volume  entitled,  “Secrets 
of  Crewe  House,”  which  gives  in  some  detail  an 
account  of  the  activities  of  Lord  Northcliffe, 
Director  of  Propaganda  in  Enemy  Countries, 
and  his  staff.  Various  chapters  deal  with  “Oper¬ 
ations  Against  Austria-Hungary,”  “Operations 
Against  Germany,”  “Operations  Against  Bul¬ 
garia,”  “Inter-Allied  Cooperation,”  “From  War 
Propaganda  to  Peace  Propaganda.”  In  his 
Foreword  the  author  says :  “Much  that  was  inter¬ 
esting  and  even  dramatic  can  never  be  divulged.” 

War  propaganda  was  not,  of  course,  confined 
to  enemy  countries.  Every  government  sys¬ 
tematically  deceived  its  own  people.  A  rigid 
censorship  prevailed  everywhere.  False  reports 
concerning  victories  and  defeats  were  constantly 
issued.  Stories  of  atrocities  committed  by  the 
enemy  were  grossly  exaggerated  or  manu¬ 
factured  outright  in  some  propaganda  office. 

[98] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


Peoples  were  deceived  by  governments  as  to  the 
real  aims  of  the  war.  We  wonder  at  the  ease 
with  which  the  German  Govermnent  was  able  to 
deceive  its  people.  We  know  now  what  was 
hidden  from  us  at  the  time,  that  during  the  very 
period  when  Allied  leaders  were  pronouncing 
the  glorious  aims  of  the  war  they  were  engaged 
in  formulating  a  series  of  sordid  secret  treaties 
by  means  of  which  they  planned  to  divide  vast 
spoils  of  war  among  themselves.1 

The  writer  is  convinced  that  our  own  govern¬ 
ment  cannot  be  justly  accused  of  many  of  the 
excesses  of  Germany  or  even  of  the  Allied  gov¬ 
ernments.  But  our  skirts  are  not  clean.  We 
had  an  efficient  department  of  propaganda, 
under  the  direction  of  Mr.  George  Creel.  It  was 
known  as  the  Committee  on  Public  Information. 
“We  did  not  call  it  propaganda,”  says  Mr.  Creel, 
“for  that  word,  in  German  hands,  had  come  to 
be  associated  with  deceit  and  corruption.”  This 
Committee  published  and  circulated  more  than 
75  million  books  and  pamphlets.  “There  was  no 
part  of  the  great  war  machinery  that  we  did  not 

1  President  Wilson  and  the  American  leaders  were  not  parties  to 
these  secret  treaties  and  seem  not  to  have  known  of  their  existence. 

[99] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


touch/5  says  Mr.  Creel,  “no  medium  of  appeal 
that  we  did  not  employ.  The  printed  word,  the 
spoken  word,  the  motion  picture,  the  telegraph, 
the  cable,  the  wireless,  the  poster,  the  sign-board 
— all  these  were  used  in  our  campaign  to  make 
our  own  people  and  all  other  peoples  understand 
the  cause  that  compelled  America  to  take  arms/’1 

An  examination  of  the  literature  circulated  by 
this  Committee — in  the  light  of  our  present 
knowledge — reveals  clearly  the  exaggerations 
and  misrepresentations  to  which  the  American 
people  were  subjected.  The  weaknesses  and 
crimes  of  Germany  were  emphasized  in  every 
possible  way,  often  in  a  highly  exaggerated  form, 
while  the  Allies  were  pictured  as  paragons  of 
virtue,  intent  only  upon  the  destruction  of  mili¬ 
tarism  and  autocracy,  and  the  liberation  of  op¬ 
pressed  peoples.  Almost  everything  good  about 
Germany  was  suppressed,  almost  everything  evil 
about  the  Allies  was  overlooked.  The  result  was 
a  picture  which  in  many  essentials  was  absolutely 
false. 

A  conspicuous  illustration  of  war  propaganda 


1  See  George  Creel,  “How  We  Advertised  America,”  for  details. 

[100] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 

is  found  in  the  exaggerations  and  falsehoods  con¬ 
cerning  the  conduct  of  German  submarine  offi¬ 
cers.  In  this  connection,  our  own  Rear  Admiral 
Sims  recently  said :  “Within  the  past  few  months, 
in  speaking  to  various  audiences  on  the  opera¬ 
tions  of  the  German  submarines,  I  have  stated 
that  their  commanders,  particularly  those  who 
operated  in  the  open  sea,  were  specially  selected 
and  thoroughly  trained  men,  and  therefore  very 
dangerous  enemies ;  that  most  of  the  accounts  of 
atrocities  popularly  attributed  to  them  were 
untrue ;  that,  barring  the  case  of  the  hospital  ship, 
Llandovery  Castle,  I  did  not  know  of  any  case 
where  a  German  submarine  commander  deliber¬ 
ately  fired  upon  the  boats  of  a  torpedoed  vessel ; 
that  the  commanding  officer  and  two  other  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  submarine  that  torpedoed  that  vessel 
were  tried  in  Germany  after  the  war  and 
punished;  that  the  submarine  commanders  gen¬ 
erally  acted  in  a  humane  manner  in  carrying  out 
the  orders  of  their  Government,  in  some  instances 
giving  the  boats  of  torpedoed  merchant  vessels 
food  and  water  and  a  tow  toward  land,  and  send¬ 
ing  out  wireless  signals  giving  their  position. 

[101] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


.  .  .  It  may,  of  course,  be  assumed  that  the 
Allies  reported  for  trial  all  cases  of  alleged 
atrocities.  .  .  .  But  if  the  Allies  could  report 
but  fifty-seven  cases,  this  alone  would  appear  to 
be  conclusive  evidence  that  there  is  no  justifica¬ 
tion  for  the  absurd  belief,  so  universally  held  in 
America,  that  practically  all  the  German  sub¬ 
marine  commanders  were  just  devils  in  human 
form,  capable  of  firing  on  defenceless  men  in 
open  boats.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  evidence 
shows  that  the  vast  majority  were  decent  seamen. 
.  .  .  If  the  war  is  of  considerable  duration  and 
intensity,  the  relatively  few  cases  of  atrocities  are 
multiplied  by  the  inevitable  popular  hatred  until 
a  general  belief  is  created  that  all  members  of  the 
enemy’s  forces  are  just  plain  beasts.”1 

Throughout  the  war  the  peoples  of  the  earth 
were  fed  upon  lies,  half-truths  and  misrepresen¬ 
tations.  “All  the  trickery  and  subterfuge  and 
war-wisdom  of  the  ages  brought  up  to  date,” 
says  Captain  Ferdinand  Tuohy,  himself  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  British  Secret  Service,  “intensified 
and  harnessed  to  every  modern  invention  and 

1  “The  Current  History  Magazine,”  June,  1923,  pp.  357,  362. 
Italics  mine. 

[102] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


device — such  has  been  the  latter-day  intelligence. 

.  .  .  A  Machiavelli,  a  Talleyrand  or  some  other 
master  schemer  of  the  ages,  come  back  to  earth, 
would  have  thrilled  to  the  amazing  cunning  and 
corruption  of  it  all.”1 

Throughout  the  period  of  hostilities  a  mora¬ 
torium  was  declared  on  freedom  of  speech  and 
press.  All  opinions  that  seemed  objectionable  to 
the  authorities  were  banned,  and  offenders  in  this 
regard  were  threatened  or  jailed.  This  denial 
of  civil  liberties  continued  long  after  the  war  had 
ended.  Under  the  wave  of  hysteria  which  swept 
over  the  world,  national,  state  and  municipal 
governments  passed  laws  seriously  abridging 
freedom  of  expression.  Many  of  these  laws  re¬ 
main  upon  the  statute  books  and  constitute  an 
ever  present  menace  to  liberty  of  speech  and 
press. 

There  were  other  moral  casualties  of  the  war. 
In  the  relations  of  the  sexes  there  were  heavy 
losses.  War  has  always  been  accompanied  by  a 
tremendous  increase  in  sexual  immorality.  This 
war  was  no  exception  to  the  rule.  All  along  the 


1  “The  Secret  Corps,”  pp.  2-4. 


[103] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

line  there  has  been  a  decline  in  moral  standards 
and  practices.  The  situation  has  been  made  much 
worse  by  the  industrial  depression  and  economic 
chaos  in  many  countries  following  the  war.  In 
England  the  volume  of  street  soliciting  has  in¬ 
creased  enormously.  One  competent  observer 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  there  are  ten  times  as 
many  girls  on  the  streets  of  London  as  before  the 
war.  In  Paris  and  Berlin  the  situation  seems  to 
be  even  worse.  It  is  a  conservative  estimate  to 
say  that  in  these  cities  hundreds  of  prostitutes 
may  be  seen  within  the  radius  of  a  few  blocks. 
Nude  dancing  girls  appear  publicly  in  theaters 
and  cabarets  without  interference  from  the 
authorities.  Conditions  were,  of  course,  very 
bad  prior  to  1914,  but  there  is  no  question  but 
that  the  situation  is  now  immeasurably  worse 
than  before  the  war.  Evidence  is  to  be  found 
not  only  in  the  number  of  professional  prostitutes 
but  also  in  the  increasing  sex  looseness  among  all 
classes  of  people.  It  may  well  be  that  in  its  ulti¬ 
mate  effects  upon  humanity  this  collapse  in 
sexual  morality  will  prove  to  be  the  supreme 
cost  of  the  war. 


[104] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


With  regard  to  the  total  moral  cost  of  the 
war,  ex-Premier  Nitti  says:  “The  losses  in  human 
life  and  property,  great  as  they  are,  are  small 
evils  compared  to  the  undermining  of  morals  and 
the  lowering  of  standards  of  culture  and  civili¬ 
zation.” 

i 

(5)  Religious  Losses  of  the  War 
There  were  heavy  spiritual  losses  also.  It  is 
impossible  to  estimate  the  number  of  men  and 
women  whose  religious  faith  has  been  shattered 
by  the  colossal  suffering  and  hideous  injustice  of 
the  war.  An  unnumbered  host  of  young  men 
entered  the  war  in  a  spirit  of  idealism  and  un¬ 
selfish  devotion  to  a  great  cause,  only  to  return 
disillusioned  and  cynical  as  to  the  value  of  all 
ideals.  Multitudes  of  people  in  all  lands  who 
responded  to  the  supreme  idealism  of  President 
Wilson  were  stunned  by  the  actual  decisions  of 
the  Versailles  Conference  and  made  skeptical 
concerning  any  ideals  among  statesmen.1  It  will 

1  The  writer  is  convinced  that  the  betrayal  of  these  ideals  at 
Versailles  was  not  primarily  the  fault  of  President  Wilson.  In¬ 
deed,  he  was  the  chief  exponent  of  the  ideals  throughout  the  Peace 
Conference. 


[105] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


be  exceedingly  difficult  to  restore  the  faith  of 
these  disillusioned  masses. 

For  the  duration  of  the  great  conflict,  hundreds 
of  millions  of  people  reverted  to  the  worship  of 
national  war  gods.  Christians  on  different  sides 
of  the  conflict  prayed  for  precisely  the  opposite 
things.  Each  group  believed  that  God  was  on 
its  side  and  opposed  to  the  enemy.  The  univer¬ 
sality  of  religion  was  dealt  a  staggering  blow. 

The  cause  of  Christian  missions  throughout 
the  world  was  placed  under  a  terrific  handicap 
by  the  war.  The  already  almost  intolerable 
burdens  under  which  Christian  missionaries  were 
compelled  to  labor,  in  their  efforts  to  build  a 
world  of  justice  and  goodwill,  have  been  multi¬ 
plied  many  fold.  A  native  minister  in  India,  in 
talking  with  a  distinguished  visitor  from  Amer¬ 
ica,  said:  “You  know  that  the  educated  people  of 
this  country  look  upon  Christianity  as  a  warring, 
bloodspilling  religion.”  The  shedding  of  rivers 
of  human  blood  by  opposing  armies  under  the 
Christian  banner  will  remain  as  a  reproach  and 
handicap  to  missionaries  for  generations  to  come. 

4 

Not  least  of  the  losses  is  the  spiritual  and 

[106] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


moral  blindness  which  has  been  intensified  as  a 
result  of  the  blessing  of  war  by  the  forces  of 
organized  religion.  Having  once  sanctioned  the 
war,  religious  leaders  were  inhibited  from  de¬ 
nouncing  the  iniquities  which  are  an  inherent 
part  of  the  war  system.  The  German  churches 
sanctioned  war  as  a  means  of  defending  the 
Fatherland ;  they  regarded  submarines  as  essen¬ 
tial  to  success ;  many  of  them  were  led,  therefore, 
to  justify  even  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania .  The 
Allied  churches  sanctioned  war  for  the  same 
reason;  they  regarded  the  blockade  as  essential 
to  success;  many  of  them  were  led,  therefore,  to 
justify  the  wholesale  starvation  of  German 
women  and  children. 

Having  sanctioned  the  war,  the  churches 
were  in  no  position  to  expose  and  denounce  the 
falsehoods  inherent  in  war.  The  situation  is  even 
more  tragic  than  this — they  were  fed  upon  mis¬ 
representation  and  falsehood  with  such  effective¬ 
ness  that  many  lost  their  ability  to  distinguish 
clearly  between  truth  and  falsehood.  How  many 
■  leaders  of  the  churches  in  any  of  the  Allied  coun¬ 
tries  in  1919  had  sufficient  knowledge  or  insight 

[107] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


to  realize  that  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  is  a  whole¬ 
sale  repudiation  of  the  terms  upon  which  Ger¬ 
many  had  surrendered,  and  upon  which  the 
Armistice  had  been  signed,  and  was  a  betrayal 
of  the  plighted  word  of  the  Allied  leaders  when 
they  accepted  the  Fourteen  Points  and  subse¬ 
quent  addresses  of  President  Wilson?  Here  and 
there  such  a  person  could  be  found,  but  the  over¬ 
whelming  proportion  accepted  the  Treaty  as 
essentially  just  and  reasonable.  From  what 
forces  of  organized  religion  in  any  Allied  coun¬ 
try  was  there  any  protest  against  the  vindictive, 
barbarous  and  peace-destroying  provisions  of  the 
Treaty? 

By  blessing  war  the  churches  have  greatly  in¬ 
tensified  the  widespread  belief  that  force  is  the 
only  effective  means  of  dealing  with  wrong-doers, 
and  have  thereby  contributed  heavily  to  “the 
great  pagan  retrogression.”  The  sanctioning  of 
armed  conflict  by  the  churches  has  helped  to 
shatter  faith  in  goodwill  and  love  as  the  greatest 
power  in  the  world  and  has  weakened  the  belief 
that  it  is  possible  to  overcome  evil  with  good. 
Their  faint-hearted  belief  in  spiritual  forces  and 

[108] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


processes  has  inhibited  them  from  an  effective 
appeal  to  governments  to  abandon  military 
force  as  a  means  of  settling  differences  between 
nations. 

(6)  Effects  Upon  the  Future 

The  almost  intolerable  fact  about  the  war  is 
that,  notwithstanding  its  stupendous  costs — 
physical,  material,  moral  and  religious — it  failed 
to  end  war.  On  the  contrary,  it  scattered  seeds 
all  over  Europe  and  the  Near  East  from  which 
future  wars  may  emerge. 

The  war  has  created  an  appalling  amount  of 
hatred.  For  nearly  ten  years  the  creation  of 
hatred  has  been  one  of  the  main  tasks  of  govern¬ 
ments.  Hate  has  its  uses  in  peace  as  well  as  in 
war,  and  governments  have  not  been  slow  to 
arouse  it  when  their  objectives  could  be  furthered 
in  that  way. 

The  greatest  tragedy  of  all  is  that  efforts  along 
this  line  have  not  been  confined  to  adults.  Hatred 
has  been  systematically  cultivated  among  chil¬ 
dren  as  well.  Ex-Premier  Nitti  has  written  a 
disturbing  paragraph  in  this  connection:  “Con- 

[109] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


sider  a  little  how  national  hatreds  are  being 
fostered.  I  have  made  a  small  collection  of  the 
books  which  have  been  widely  disseminated  since 
the  war  in  French  and  Belgian  schools,  and  if 
one  cares  to  see  with  what  industry  the  cult  of 
national  hatred  is  being  encouraged,  one  could 
read  nothing  more  instructive.  For  instance, 
there  is  a  book  written  by  a  French  directeur 
d’ecole  for  the  schools,  in  the  form  of  a  history  of 
the  Great  War  entitled  Pour  Notre  France .  In 
it  the  Germans  are  described  as  hordes  of  sav¬ 
ages,  whose  profession  is  war,  who  go  about  to 
despoil,  to  devastate,  and  to  terrorize.  There  is 
a  long  series  of  statements  made  to  kindle  hate 
against  them. 5,1 

This  kind  of  instruction  is  being  given  all  over 
Europe.  It  is  almost  maddening  to  think  in¬ 
tently  upon  the  things  to  which  millions  of  chil¬ 
dren  and  young  people  have  been  subjected 
during  the  past  decade :  bloodshed,  violence, 
terror,  exposure,  exile,  hunger,  disease,  homeless¬ 
ness,  bereavement,  hatred !  And  all  these  during 
the  most  plastic  age,  when  impressions  are  most 

1  “The  Decadence  of  Europe”  p.  XXVII.  See  Will  Irwin 
“Christ  or  Mars”  for  further  evidence  along  this  line. 

[110] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


lasting.  In  what  way  could  an  archfiend  more 
certainly  insure  violence,  bloodshed  and  universal 
catastrophe  in  the  years  ahead? 

And  to  hatred  must  be  added  fear.  It  was  fear 
more  than  any  other  factor  that  caused  the  war. 
And  now  the  war  has  produced  a  new  crop  of 
fear.  Never  in  human  history  has  such  a  vast 
population  been  haunted  by  fear.  Hatred  is 
followed  by  fear.  Fear  in  turn  brings  forth 
greater  hatred.  Fear  and  hatred  together  are 
blinding  to  reason  and  morality.  Hence  the 
dreadful  spectacle  of  the  present  hour  in  Eu¬ 
rope:  Millions  of  people  hungry  and  under¬ 
nourished,  governments  bankrupt  and  unable  to 
balance  budgets,  and  yet  half  a  million  more 
men  under  arms  than  in  1913,  that  mad  year  of 
rivalry  in  armaments!  And  this  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  two  of  the  greatest  of  the  old  armies 
have  vanished,  those  of  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary.  France  has  had  a  larger  army  since 
the  war  than  Germany  had  when  the  Prussian 
sword-rattling  was  the  loudest. 

Economic  rivalry  between  the  various  powers 
has  been  greatly  intensified  by  the  war.  If  for 


[111] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

no  other  reason,  this  is  true  because  economic 
pressure  is  vastly  more  acute.  Millions  of  peo¬ 
ple  are  dependent  upon  foreign  trade  for  their 
very  lives.  Governments  feel  under  greater  ob¬ 
ligations  than  ever  to  render  all  possible  assist¬ 
ance  to  their  traders  and  concession-hunters. 
This  inevitably  means  a  clash  between  two  gov¬ 
ernments  whose  citizens  are  seeking  the  same 
prize.  In  the  past  such  clashes  have  often  led 
to  war.  Prospects  in  this  realm  are  now  very 
far  from  encouraging. 

And  then  there  are  those  millions  who  were 
defeated  and  crushed,  who  are  sincerely  con¬ 
vinced,  that  the  terms  of  the  Armistice  were 
regarded  as  mere  scraps  of  paper  by  the  Allies, 
who  regard  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  and  other 
treaties  negotiated  at  the  end  of  the  war  as  docu¬ 
ments  of  iniquity  and  gross  injustice,  who  are 
smarting  under  the  military  occupation  of  stra¬ 
tegic  sections  of  their  country,  who  are  com¬ 
pelled  to  provide  of  their  countrywomen  to  sat¬ 
isfy  the  lusts  of  the  invaders  in  brothels  main¬ 
tained  out  of  their  own  taxes,1  who  are  by  no 

1  See  ex-Premier  Francesco  Nitti,  “The  Decadence  of  Europe/’ 
p.  128,  for  details  in  this  connection. 

[112] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 

means  resigned  to  the  loss  of  vast  territories  and 
millions  of  their  former  comrades — what  of 
these  embittered  and  suffering  multitudes?  If 
one  Alsace-Lorraine  could  trouble  the  peace  of 
Europe  for  a  generation,  what  will  be  the  ulti¬ 
mate  consequences  of  a  dozen  such  areas  ? 

Mr.  Lloyd  George  has  recently  enumerated 
some  of  the  friction  points  in  Europe  and  the 
Near  East  as  follows:  “There  is  the  annexation 
of  Vilna  by  force;  there  is  the  annexation  of 
Galicia  by  force,  by  violence,  by  the  use  of  arms 
against  the  will  of  the  population.  Elsewhere 
you  have  the  German  and  Pole  quarreling  over 
Silesia;  the  Russian  and  the  Pole  over  doubtful 
boundaries ;  the  Czech  and  the  Magyar ;  the  Ser¬ 
bian  and  the  Bulgarian;  the  Russian  and  the 
Rumanian;  the  Rumanian  and  the  Magyar. 
There  is  the  age-long  feud  between  Greek  and 
Turk.  All  have  an  air  of  biding  opportunity, 
all  are  armed  ready  for  slaughter.  Europe  is  a 
seething  cauldron  of  international  hates,  with 
powerful  men  in  command  of  the  fuel  stores 
feeding  the  flames  and  stoking  the  fires.”1 


1  David  Lloyd  George,  “Where  Are  We  Going?”  p.  38. 

[113] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

There  is  still  another  danger  which  must  be 
faced :  violent  revolution,  political  and  economic 
chaos  in  Germany.  This  is  not  likely  to  come 
unless  masses  of  German  people  are  driven  to 
desperation  by  hunger  and  the  hard  hand  of  the 
invader.  And  yet  one  is  made  to  feel  uneasy 
by  what  he  sees  and  hears  in  Germany.  Multi¬ 
tudes  of  people  are  hungry  now  and  the  petty 
regulations,  steady  pressure,  and  occasional  out¬ 
rage  in  the  occupied  areas  are  galling  beyond  ex¬ 
pression  to  these  proud  people.  The  writer  has 
just  returned  from  a  visit  to  Berlin,  the  Ruhr 
and  the  occupied  area.  He  had  the  opportunity 
of  getting  an  expression  of  opinion  from  Ger¬ 
mans  of  many  different  professions  and  points 
of  view,  as  well  as  from  influential  foreigners. 
He  was  sorely  troubled  by  the  fact  that  almost 
every  person  with  whom  he  talked  felt  sure  there 
would  be  a  communist  revolution  or  a  violent  up¬ 
rising  of  some  kind  before  the  winter  is  over. 
And  then  what?  Can  anyone  predict  what  Rus¬ 
sia  will  do  ? 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  many  care¬ 
ful  observers  are  warning  us  that  more  possible 

[114] 


WHAT  DID  THE  WAR  ACCOMPLISH? 


causes  of  war  exist  today  than  in  1913  and  that, 
judged  by  all  visible  evidence,  we  are  nearer 
war  today  than  in  the  early  months  of  1914.  We 
cannot  escape  the  fact  that  hatred ,  fear ,  huge 
armaments ,  desperate  economic  rivalry,  coupled 
with  the  desire  for  revenge  and  restitution ,  are 
unstable  foundations  for  an  enduring  peace . 

(7)  Summary . 

We  have  seen  that  the  World  War  resulted 
in  at  least  the  temporary  destruction  of  militar¬ 
ism  and  autocracy  in  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cost  26  mil¬ 
lion  lives,  337  billion  dollars,  the  moral  deterior¬ 
ation  of  whole  nations,  spiritual  tragedies  beyond 
computation,  and  the  sowing  of  the  seeds  of  fu¬ 
ture  wars. 

The  war  has  gone  much  deeper  into  the  life 
of  the  world  than  we  can  now  realize.  Some  of 
its  worst  effects  are  just  beginning  to  be  felt, 
and  its  ultimate  consequences  will  not  be  visible 
to  this  generation.  We  are  able,  however,  to 
discern  its  true  nature  with  sufficient  clearness 
to  reach  certain  definite  conclusions  concerning 

[115] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


it.  We  do  not  need  any  further  proof  that  the 
war  system  creates  an  unworkable  society.  The 
war  spirit  makes  impossible  the  degree  of  co¬ 
operation  which  is  imperative  in  a  world  where 
peoples  and  nations  are  so  dependent  upon  each 
other.  The  World  War  dealt  western  civiliza¬ 
tion  a  staggering  blow.  Many  careful  observers 
are  warning  us  that  another  great  war  will  re¬ 
sult  in  the  collapse  of  European  civilization. 
One  does  not  need  to  be  an  alarmist  to  say  this. 
The  lesson  of  history  at  this  point  is  clear.  Sev¬ 
eral  great  civilizations  have  already  perished  be¬ 
cause  of  war.  The  ruins  of  Babylon,  Egypt, 
Assyria,  Persia,  Greece  and  Rome  constitute  a 
solemn  warning  to  present-day  Europe.  If  the 
people  of  this  generation  are  to  escape  a  re¬ 
lapse  into  barbarism,  the  war  system  must 
quickly  be  uprooted  and  cast  out  of  our  social 
structure. 


[116] 


Chapter  III 


HOW  CAN  FURTHER  WARS  BE 
PREVENTED? 

Almost  everybody  in  the  world  is  eager  to 
prevent  war.  The  menace  of  war  is  so  great 
that  many  of  the  best  minds  of  the  earth  are  now 
devoted  to  the  task  of  its  prevention.  A  multi¬ 
tude  of  remedies  are  being  advocated.  A  list 
of  these  measures  includes  military  prepared¬ 
ness,  no-more-war  parades,  resolutions  against 
war,  exhortations  to  individuals  to  go  on  record 
as  refusing  to  sanction  or  participate  in  any  war, 
open  diplomacy,  popular  referendums,  disarma¬ 
ment  conferences,  arbitration  treaties,  the  out¬ 
lawry  of  war,  the  World  Court,  the  League  of 
Nations,  etc. 

The  first  conclusion  reached  by  any  serious 
student  of  international  affairs  is  that  there  is 
no  panacea  for  war .  No  single  plan  is  adequate 
to  prevent  all  wars.  The  situation  is  much  too 
complex.  The  war  system  is  too  deeply  em- 

[117] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


bedded  in  our  social  structure.  Many  different 
sorts  of  measures  must  be  advocated  simulta¬ 
neously  if  war  is  to  be  abolished.  For  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  this  discussion,  these  measures  have  been 
grouped  under  five  headings. 

.(i)  Abandonment  of  Economic  Imperialism . 

War  cannot  be  abolished  without  the  payment 
of  a  great  price.  One  of  the  elements  of  this 
cost  is  the  willingness  of  Governments  to  refrain 
from  using  national  armies,  navies  and  diplo¬ 
matic  influence  to  aid  their  citizens  in  gaining  or 
maintaining  economic  concessions  or  other  finan¬ 
cial  advantages  in  foreign  countries.  War  is 
likely  to  break  out  at  any  time  so  long  as  present 
practices  in  this  regard  are  continued.1 

Economic  imperialism  is  now  finding  expresr 
sion  through  three  main  channels:  (1)  the  se¬ 
curing  of  new  territory  and  concessions ;  ( 2 )  the 
maintenance  and  enlargement  of  markets;  and 
(3)  the  investment  of  capital  in  foreign  coun- 

1  The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ,  the  National 
Catholic  Welfare  Council,  and  the  Central  Conference  of  Ameri¬ 
can  Rabbis  are  now  engaged  in  a  joint  research  into  the  economic 
causes  of  war,  and  are  planning  to  issue  a  series  of  bulletins,  with 
regard  to  which  information  may  be  secured  by  communicating 
with  Rev.  F.  Ernest  Johnson,  105  East  22nd  Street,  New  York 
City. 


[118] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


tries.  There  have  been  important  recent  devel¬ 
opments  with  regard  to  the  first  of  these.  The 
various  treaties  negotiated  at  the  end  of  the  war 
provided  for  numerous  transfers  of  territories 
and  valuable  mineral  rights.  Indeed,  the  major 
diplomatic  struggles  of  recent  years  have  cen¬ 
tered  around  oil,  coal  and  iron.  Many  of  the 
most  important  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Versailles  deal  with  these  three.  Any  doubt  as 
to  the  strategic  position  of  oil  in  current  diplo¬ 
macy  will  be  removed  by  reading  a  recent  book 
by  a  French  writer,  Francis  Delaisi,  “Oil:  Its 
Influence  on  Politics.”  The  significant  fact  in 
this  connection  is  not  that  citizens  of  various 
countries  are  competing  with  each  other  for 
favorable  access  to  supplies  of  oil,  but  that  Gov¬ 
ernments  are  supporting  them  diplomatically , 
financially  and  with  threats  of  military  action . 

A  good  illustration  of  the  practices  of  Govern¬ 
ments  in  this  regard  is  found  in  the  report  of  the 
Acting  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Frank  L.  Polk, 
transmitted  to  the  Senate  on  May  17,  1920,  by 
President  Wilson,  from  which  the  following  quo¬ 
tation  is  taken : 


[119] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


“The  policy  of  the  British  Empire  is  reported 
to  be  to  bring  about  the  exclusion  of  aliens  from 
the  control  of  the  petroleum  supplies  of  the  Em¬ 
pire,  and  to  endeavor  to  secure  some  measure  of 
control  over  oil  properties  in  foreign  countries. 
This  policy  appears  to  be  developing  along  the 
the  following  lines,  which  are  directly  or  indi¬ 
rectly  restrictive  on  citizens  of  the  United  States: 
1.  By  debarring  foreigners  and  foreign  na¬ 
tionals  from  owning  or  operating  oil-producing 
properties  in  the  British  Isles,  colonies,  and  pro¬ 
tectorates.  2.  By  direct  participation  in  owner¬ 
ship  and  control  of  petroleum  properties.  3.  By 
arrangements  to  prevent  British  oil  companies 
from  selling  their  properties  to  foreign-owned 
or  controlled  companies.  4.  By  Orders  in  Coun¬ 
cil  that  prohibit  the  transfer  of  shares  in  British 
oil  companies  to  other  than  British  subjects  or 
nationals.’51  There  is  an  abundance  of  evidence 
to  show  that  Great  Britain  is  not  the  only  nation 
which  follows  such  a  policy. 

Governments  are  also  aiding  their  citizens  to 
gain  more  favorable  access  to  markets  by  subsi- 

1  Francis  Delaisi,  “Oil,”  p.  39. 

[120] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


dies,  tariffs  and  preferential  treatment  in  colo¬ 
nies  and  regions  under  their  control.  Since  the 
precedent  set  by  Lord  Palmerton  in  1850,  Gov¬ 
ernments  have  also  frequently  collected  debts  in 
foreign  countries  for  their  citizens.  Govern¬ 
ments  are  constantly  taking  measures  against 
other  nations  to  insure  the  safety  of  investments 
which  their  citizens  have  made. 

For  these  three  reasons — to  gain  new  terri¬ 
tory  and  economic  concessions,  to  widen  mar¬ 
kets,  and  to  protect  investments — innumerable 
wars  have  been  waged  and  hardly  a  year  has 
passed  without  the  threat  of  war.  Of  course, 
the  economic  causes  of  war  are  never  proclaimed 
boldly  by  Governments  to  their  citizens.  Sup¬ 
port  for  such  wars  is  gained  by  appealing  to 
national  pride,  national  safety  and  jealousy  of 
other  countries.  International  economic  compe¬ 
tition  is  growing  keener  and  situations  out  of 
which  economic  wars  may  arise  are  much  more 
numerous  than  ever  before. 

Prior  to  1918  the  United  States  played 
minor  role  in  the  struggle  for  territory,  conces¬ 
sions  and  markets.  We  were  a  debtor  nation. 


[121] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


the  amount  of  foreign  capital  invested  in  our 
country  being  far  in  excess  of  the  amount  of 
American  capital  invested  abroad.  The  World 
War,  however,  has  changed  all  this.  We  are 
now  the  great  creditor  nation,  international 
banker  and  money  lender,  and  are  inextricably 
bound  up  with  the  economic  and  financial  prob¬ 
lems  of  the  whole  world. 

Let  us  notice  some  of  the  ways  in  which  the 
United  States  is  entangled  in  foreign  problems. 
The  Hawaiian  Islands,  the  Philippine  Islands, 
Guam,  Porto  Rico,  Guantanamo,  and  the  Pan¬ 
ama  Canal  are  under  American  control.  Our 
customs  system  has  been  extended  to  Hawaii, 
preferential  duties  are  granted  to  American 
commodities  imported  into  the  Philippines,  Cuba 
and  Porto  Rico,  and  the  products  of  these  is¬ 
lands  are  favored  when  entering  the  United 
States.1 

In  1902  Venezuela  defaulted  in  payments  due 
to  foreign  investors.  The  English,  German  and 
Italian  Governments  promptly  blockaded  the 
Venezuelan  Coast.  This  in  turn  called  for  the 

1  Professor  Achille  Viallate,  “Economic  Imperialism  and  Inter¬ 
national  Relations,”  p.  70. 

[122] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


diplomatic  intervention  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  trouble  was  ended  pacifically.  The  inci¬ 
dent,  however,  has  great  significance  because  of 
its  bearing  upon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the 
question  of  the  responsibilities  of  the  United 
States  in  protecting  foreign  investments  in  Latin 
America. 

In  his  message  of  December,  1904,  President 
Roosevelt  said:  “Chronic  wrongdoing,  or  an  im¬ 
potence  which  results  in  a  general  loosening  of 
the  ties  of  civilized  society,  may  in  America,  as 
elsewhere,  ultimately  require  intervention  by 
some  civilized  nation,  and  in  the  Western  Hemis¬ 
phere  the  adherence  of  the  United  States  to  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  may  force  the  United  States, 
however  reluctantly,  in  flagrant  cases  of  such 
wrongdoing  or  impotence  to  the  exercise  of  an 
international  police  power.” 

This  threat  has  since  been  carried  into  effect 
in  several  instances,  and  the  Dominican  Repub¬ 
lic,  Honduras,  Nicaragua,  and  Haiti  have  all 
been  forced  to  accept  the  “financial  protectorate” 
of  the  United  States.1  The  government  of  Haiti 

1  Professor  Achille  Viallate,  “Economic  Imperialism  and  Inter¬ 
national  Relations,”  p.  66  ff. 

[123] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

is  controlled  by  American  Marines.  Recently  a 
loan  of  sixteen  million  dollars  was  negotiated 
with  American  bankers,  with  a  provision  for  a 
considerable  degree  of  American  control  for 
thirty  years,  the  duration  of  the  loan.  Two 
groups  of  American  bankers  control  the  rail¬ 
roads  of  Nicaragua,  as  well  as  its  customs  and 
other  finances.  United  States  Marines  are  sta¬ 
tioned  in  Guatemala  for  the  purpose  of  safe¬ 
guarding  investments.  Peru,  Bolivia  and  other 
South  American  countries  are  also  securing 
loans  from  bankers  in  the  United  States.1  Twice 
within  recent  years,  United  States  troops  have 
invaded  Mexico  for  the  purpose  of  protecting 
American  lives  and  property.  Disputes  between 
American  bankers  and  the  Mexican  Govern¬ 
ment  are  responsible  for  the  long  delay  in  re¬ 
cognition  of  that  Government  by  the  United 
States. 

The  United  States  is  also  entangled  in  world 
finance  by  the  debts,  aggregating  ten  or  eleven 
billion  dollars,  owed  by  foreign  nations.  Fur- 

1  See  Norman  Thomas,  “The  Challenge  of  War:  An  Economic 
Interpretation,”  a  valuable  pamphlet,  which  may  be  obtained  from 
the  League  for  Industrial  Democracy,  70  Fifth  Avenue,  New 
York  City,  for  ten  cents. 

[124] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


thermore,  American  investors  now  have  very 
large  holdings  of  European  bonds — national, 
municipal  and  industrial.  American  corpora¬ 
tions  are  also  securing  valuable  mining  rights 
and  other  concessions  throughout  the  earth. 

A  conspicous  example  is  found  in  the  so-called 
Chester  Concession.  On  April  11,  1923,  the 
Turkish  National  Assembly  awarded  to  the 
Ottoman- American  Development  Company, 
headed  by  Rear  Admiral  Chester,  a  retired 
United  States  naval  officer,  extensive  concessions 
for  the  building  of  railroads,  the  exploitation  of 
mines  and  the  execution  of  other  large  projects. 
The  fulfillment  of  this  agreement  would  involve 
an  expenditure  of  from  $200,000,000  to  $300,- 
000,000,  and  the  exploitation  of  mineral  and 
other  natural  resources  valued  at  more  than 
$10,000,000,000.  The  oil  fields  of  the  Erzerum, 
Bitlis,  Van  and  Mosul  districts  are  estimated  to 
have  potentially  over  8,000,000,000  barrels  of 
oil;  the  Arghana  copper  mine  is  estimated  to 
have  200,000,000  tons  of  high  grade  copper  ore. 
These  territories  are  also  rich  in  gold,  platinum, 
silver,  iron,  lead,  zinc,  mercury,  cobalt,  manga- 

[125] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


nese,  nickel,  antimony,  coal  and  salt.  The  total 
length  of  the  railways  to  be  constructed  is  2,714 
miles.  Three  port  cities  are  to  be  constructed. 
The  duration  of  the  contract  is  ninety-nine 
years.1 

In  this  connection,  The  Nation  said  editori¬ 
ally:  “Admiral  Chester’s  concession  in  Turkey  is 
as  orthodox  a  forward  step  in  imperialism  as 
could  be  conceived.  It  grew  out  of  an  expedi¬ 
tion  for  the  protection  of  missionaries;  it  in¬ 
cludes  oil,  copper,  iron  and  railroads ;  it  conflicts 
with  claims  advanced  in  behalf  of  the  subjects 
of  two  other  great  powers,  and  has  about  as 
many  possibilities  of  international  squabbles 
hidden  away  in  its  clauses  as  could  possibly  be 
tucked  into  a  single  document.”2 

These,  then,  are  some  of  the  ways  in  which 
America  is  tied  up  with  the  economic  and  finan¬ 
cial  problems  of  the  world — which  problems,  let 
it  be  remembered,  are  the  chief  causes  of  mod¬ 
ern  wars:  foreign  territories,  foreign  protector- 


1  For  the  full  text  of  this  agreement,  together  with  an  illuminat¬ 
ing  discussion,  see  the  New  York  Times  Current  History  Maga¬ 
zine,  June,  1923,  p.  393  ff.  See  also  E.  M.  Earle,  “Turkey,  the 
Great  Powers  and  the  Bagdad  Railway,”  pp.  336  ff. 

2  April  25,  1923,  p.  481. 

[126] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


ates,  foreign  loans,  foreign  investments,  foreign 
concessions.  In  the  light  of  these  entangle¬ 
ments,  it  is  supreme  folly  to  talk  of  the  United 
States  following  a  course  of  splendid  isolation. 
No  war  of  the  future — great  or  small — will  fail 
to  affect  the  financial  interests  of  American  cit¬ 
izens.  “Once  a  great  European  war  merely  de¬ 
ranged  our  trade,”  says  Professor  Beard;  “in 
the  future  it  will  disturb  every  investor  in  every 
village  Main  Street.” 

What  is  to  be  the  policy  of  the  United  States 
Government  when  the  investments  and  rights  of 
her  citizens  in  foreign  countries  are  jeopardized? 
So  far  as  Latin  American  countries  are  con¬ 
cerned  our  policy  seems  to  be  well  defined — that 
of  protection  by  military  force.  Wherein  does 
this  policy  differ  from  that  of  European  nations, 
which  has  so  often  led  to  war?  Is  the  chief 
difference  found  in  the  weakness  of  the  default¬ 
ing  nations  and  the  absence  of  any  formidable 
rival  in  the  Western  Hemisphere?  How  does 
this  policy  affect  American  efforts  to  induce 
other  countries  to  change  policies  which  are  a 
menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world? 


[127] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

It  is  obvious  that  the  capital  of  more  advanced 
nations  is  needed  to  aid  in  the  development  of 
more  backward  countries.  It  is  in  the  exploita¬ 
tion  of  these  backward  nations  that  the  danger 
is  found.  It  seems  clear  that  we  may  expect  wars 
so  long  as  economic  exploitation  is  enforced  by 
diplomacy  and  military  power.  The  first  step, 
therefore,  in  preventing  further  wars,  is  to  aban¬ 
don  this  fatal  policy.  Several  plans  for  improv¬ 
ing  conditions  in  this  regard  have  been  offered. 
As  far  back  as  1867  the  Brazilian  jurist,  Calvo, 
maintained  that  foreigners  had  no  right  to  ex¬ 
pect  their  Governments  to  intervene  either  with 
military  force  or  diplomatic  action  in  purely 
financial  disputes. 

At  the  first  Pan-American  Conference  in 
1890  all  the  Latin  American  countries  voted  for 
a  resolution  maintaining  that  foreigners  should 
have  the  same  status  as  citizens  and  the  same 
legal  protection  for  life  and  property,  and  no 
more.  The  delegates  of  the  United  States  re¬ 
fused  to  accept  this  declaration,  and,  in  the  words 
of  Professor  Viallate,  “supported  the  custom 
followed  by  foreign  governments  of  upholding 

[128] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 

the  claims  of  their  citizens  in  instances  of  default, 
of  forcing  compulsory  loans,  and  of  committing 
other  oppressive  acts.551 

In  1904,  Luis  Drago,  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  proposed 
“that  the  public  debt  cannot  occasion  armed  in¬ 
tervention  nor  even  the  actual  occupation  of  the 
territory  of  American  nations  by  European 
powers.55  This  proposal,  known  as  Drago’s 
Doctrine,  came  before  the  Hague  Conference 
in  1907,  and  received  the  support  of  the  dele¬ 
gates  of  the  United  States,  but  was  defeated. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  United  States 
Government  was  unwilling  to  have  European 
powers  adopt  its  own  well-defined  policy  in 
Latin  America. 

If  the  statesmen  of  the  various  nations  desire 
to  prevent  further  wars,  it  is  imperative  that 
they  should  quickly  agree  to  some  such  proposal 
as  that  advanced  by  Calvo.  The  adoption  and 
adherence  to  such  a  measure  would  be  a  sig¬ 
nificant  contribution  to  the  abolition  of  war. 

Sooner  or  later  the  peoples  of  the  earth  will 


1  See  “Economic  Imperialism,”  p.  65  ff. 


[129] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


find  it  necessary  to  formulate  a  plan  of  interna¬ 
tional  control  of  raw  materials.  During  the 
war  the  Allies  adopted  measures  along  this  line. 
So  long  as  the  various  nations  continue  their 
mad  scramble  for  monopolization  of  the  raw  ma¬ 
terials  of  the  earth  there  is  no  hope  of  perma¬ 
nent  peace  or  prosperity. 

,(2)  Disarmament 

Armaments  are  the  chief  cause  of  fear  be¬ 
tween  nations.  Fear  is  the  chief  cause  of  war. 
War  produces  still  greater  fear.  Fear  in  turn 
produces  larger  armaments.  This  is  the  vicious 
circle  in  which  the  nations  have  been  traveling 
during  the  past  century,  with  armaments  piling 
higher  and  higher,  and  fear  steadily  increasing. 

Moreover,  huge  armaments  destroy  confidence 
in  other  means  of  protection  and  of  securing 
justice.  The  presence  of  large  numbers  of 
officers  and  soldiers — trained  to  think  only  in 
terms  of  force — has  a  profound  influence  upon 
public  opinion,  as  we  now  know  from  the  tragic 
example  of  Germany.  Thus  whole  populations 
come  to  depend  more  and  more  upon  armies 
and  navies.  This  tends  to  perpetuate  the  deifi- 

[130] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


cation  of  physical  force,  which  Benjamin  Kidd 
justly  calls  “the  great  pagan  retrogression”  of 
Western  civilization.1 

Armaments  are  the  chief  reliance  of  diplo¬ 
mats  and  traders  in  their  exploitation  of  weaker 
peoples.  The  history  of  European  diplomacy 
during  the  past  century  supports  this  conclusion. 
Without  huge  armies  and  navies  the  spoilation 
of  Africa,  China  and  other  parts  of  the  world 
by  the  great  powers  would  not  have  been  possi¬ 
ble. 

Armaments  are  the  heaviest  financial  burden 
of  modern  Governments.  Statistics  leave  no 
room  for  doubt  at  this  point.  The  Bureau  of 
Efficiency  has  prepared  a  chart  showing  the  per¬ 
centage  of  the  total  budget  of  the  United  States 
Government  in  1922  expended  for  various  pur¬ 
poses,  of  which  the  following  is  a  summary: 

Per 

Amount  Cent 

Group  I.  Primary  govern¬ 
ment  functions  (legisla¬ 
tive,  executive  and  judi¬ 
cial) .  $  168,186,249  6.2 

1  See  his  “Science  of  Power”  for  an  extraordinarily  illuminating 
discussion  of  this  point. 


[131] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


Per  i 


Amount 

Cent 

Group  II.  Research,  edu- 

cation  and  development 
work . 

55,530,280 

2.0 

Group  III.  Public  works.  . 

162,852,690 

6.0 

Total  civil  expenditures 

* 

(net) . 

$ 

386,569,219 

14.2 

Group  IV.  Army  and  Navy 
Group  V.  Pensions  and  care 

$ 

547,948,364 

20.2 

of  soldiers . 

Group  VI.  Special  activi- 

702,139,116 

25.9 

ties  pertaining  to  recent 

war . 

10,534,057 

0.4 

Group  VII.  Interest . 

Group  VIII.  Retirement  of 

721,286,130 

26.6 

public  debt . 

345,097,000 

12.7 

Total  expenditures  to  pay 

i 

for  wars  of  the  past  and 

prepare  for  future  wars. 

$2,327,002,667 

85.8* 

Grand  total  net  expen¬ 
ditures .  $2,713,571,886  100.0 


*  The  Secretary  of  War  has  challenged  these  percentages  and 
has  issued  a  chart  of  his  own,  in  which  he  uses  gross  expenditures. 
According  to  his  chart  the  postoffice  costs  more  than  national 
defence,  whereas  the  postoffice  is  practically  self-supporting,  while 
the  army  and  navy  cost  more  than  500  millions.  See  the  Literary 
Digest,  April  28,  1923,  in  this  connection. 

[132] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


The  percentage  of  war  costs  in  other  nations 
is  also  very  high.  For  1923,  France  is  spending 
23  per  cent  of  its  total  budget  to  maintain  its 
army  and  navy.  Great  Britain  15  per  cent,  and 
Japan  34  per  cent,  not  to  mention  the  large 
percentages  for  pensions  and  other  World  War 
costs.1 

The  enormous  expenditure  upon  armaments 
diverts  funds  from  more  constructive  uses.  So 
much  money  was  spent  on  armaments  in  the 
United  States  last  year  that  only  2  per  cent  of 
the  total  budget  was  available  for  education,  re¬ 
search,  and  development  work.  Numerous  con  ¬ 
structive  tasks  are  left  undone  because  the  neces¬ 
sary  funds  are  lacking. 

The  evidence  is  complete  that  armaments  are 
not  only  an  enormous  burden  upon  the  peoples 
of  the  world,  but  are  the  chief  cause  of  fear,  and, 
therefore,  the  chief  cause  of  war.  The  vicious 
circle  of  armaments,  fear,  war,  more  armaments, 
must  be  broken  if  Western  civilization  is  to  sur¬ 
vive.  Fortunately,  a  wave  of  protest  against 

1  See  Labour  Research  Bulletin,  April,  1923,  p.  13.  See  Arthur 
Guy  Enock,  “The  Problem  of  Armaments,”  pp.  182  ff.,  for  the 
percentages  spent  upon  war  by  the  great  powers  each  year  from 
1900  to  1920. 


[103] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


huge  armaments  is  beginning  to  sweep  across 
the  world.  The  response  to  the  Washington 
Conference  is  an  indication  of  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  masses  everywhere  for  reduction  of  arma¬ 
ments.  This  movement,  if  it  is  to  have  perma¬ 
nent  success,  must  include  all  nations.  The 
most  likely  ways  to  make  progress  in  this  di¬ 
rection  are  through  the  League  of  Nations,  or 
through  an  all-embracing  World  Conference  on 
Armaments.  Public  opinion  should  see  to  it 
that  one  of  these  methods  is  adopted  in  the  im¬ 
mediate  future.1 

(3)  Abolition  of  Secret  Diplomacy 
The  main  reason  why  secret  diplomacy  has 
prevailed  is  because  so  many  acts  of  diplomats 
will  not  bear  the  light  of  day.  The  chief  reason 
why  foreign  offices  are  able  to  continue  in  their 
wrongdoing  is  because  of  the  secrecy  and  irre¬ 
sponsibility  of  their  movements.  Here  we  have 
another  vicious  circle  that  must  be  broken.  The 
abandonment  by  Governments  of  the  practice 

1  For  an  illuminating  account  of  the  history  of  the  movement  for 
disarmament,  see  Dr.  Hans  Wehberg,  “The  Limitation  of  Arma¬ 
ments,”  which  may  be  secured  from  The  Carnegie  Endowment  for 
International  Peace,  Washington,  D.  C. 

[134] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


of  supporting  their  citizens  in  the  economic  ex¬ 
ploitation  of  weaker  peoples  will  largely  remove 
the  need  for  secret  diplomacy.  On  the  other 
hand,  open  diplomacy  with  full  publicity  of  all 
major  activities  of  diplomats  will  help  enor¬ 
mously  in  securing  the  abandonment  of  impe¬ 
rialistic  designs.  It  is  essential,  therefore,  that 
simultaneous  efforts  should  be  made  in  these 
fields. 

To  this  end,  it  is  imperative  that  committees 
of  Congress  and  Parliaments,  composed  of  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  all  parties,  should  have  free  access 
to  all  files  and  papers  of  the  State  Department 
and  Foreign  Offices.  The  Secretary  of  State 
should  be  compelled  to  print  in  full  all  treaties 
and  understandings  with  other  nations,  and  to 
make  comprehensive  reports  of  all  dealings  with 
foreign  powers.  The  foreign  policy  should  be 
subject  to  constant  review  by  the  duly  elected 
representatives  of  the  people.  A  greater  de¬ 
gree  of  democratic  control  of  the  foreign  poli¬ 
cies  of  the  various  nations  is  one  of  the  dominant 
needs  of  the  hour.1 

1  For  a  suggestive  treatment  of  this  point,  see  E.  D.  Morel,  M.  P., 
“The  Secret  History  of  a  Great  Betrayal.” 


[135] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

(4)  Establishment  of  International  Processes 
of  Justice 

(a)  The  Outlawry  of  War . — Law  and  social 
organization  are  the  alternative  to  war.  Through¬ 
out  human  history  disputes  have  arisen  between 
individuals  and  between  groups.  These  disputes 
have  been  settled  by  physical  combat  or  by  con¬ 
ference.  Present  day  disputants,  individuals  or 
groups,  may  resort  to  force  or  reach  a  reasoned 
agreement.  Centuries  of  experience  has  demon¬ 
strated  that  a  basis  of  reasoned  agreement  must 
be  established  before  individuals  or  groups  will 
refrain  from  armed  combat.  This  means  law 
and  social  organization.  And  so  through  the 
centuries  mankind  has  been  building  up,  slowly 
and  painfully,  a  code  of  law  and  appropriate 
machinery  for  the  necessary  legislation,  adju¬ 
dication  and  enforcement. 

In  no  realm  has  this  been  easy  or  wholly  suc¬ 
cessful.  Strong  and  aggressive  individuals  have 
often  successfully  resisted  all  efforts  toward  so¬ 
cial  control.  The  same  thing  has  been  true  with 
regard  to  strong  tribes,  strong  cities,  strong 
states,  and  conspicuously  so  in  recent  years 

[136] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PBE VENTED? 


with  strong  nations.  Gradually,  however,  in  the 
face  of  gigantic  obstacles  and  after  many  ret¬ 
rogressions,  law  and  social  machinery  have  re¬ 
placed  armed  combat  between  individuals,  cities 
and  states  within  nations.  Murders  still  occur, 
of  course,  and  at  long  intervals  civil  wars  break 
out.  But  these  are  the  exception.  The  nor¬ 
mal  and  universally  accepted  rule  in  civilized 
countries  is  to  settle  disputes  between  individ¬ 
uals,  cities  and  states  within  a  nation,  on  a  basis 
of  law  and  to  depend  upon  social  control  for  the 
securing  of  justice  and  freedom. 

The  one  great  exception  to  this  procedure,  of 
course,  is  found  in  the  settling  of  disputes  be¬ 
tween  nations.  Here  war  is  the  universally  recog¬ 
nized  and  legal  institution.  Mankind  learns 
slowly.  Even  the  holocaust  of  the  World  War 
has  not  caused  nations  to  abandon  armed  conflict. 
Strong  and  aggressive  nations  still  resist  all  ef¬ 
fective  efforts  toward  social  control.  Gradually, 
however,  the  light  is  breaking  through  the  deep 
darkness.  An  increasing  number  of  men  and 
women  everywhere  are  asking:  If  freedom,  jus¬ 
tice  and  the  common  good  of  individuals  and 

[137] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


cities  can  best  be  promoted  by  law  and  social 
control,  why  is  this  not  also  true  for  nations? 
If  armed  conflict  between  individuals  and  cities 
should  be  outlawed,  why  is  not  this  equally  true 
of  armed  conflict  between  nations? 

One  of  the  ways  in  which  this  sentiment  is 
finding  expression  in  the  United  States  is 
through  the  American  Committee  for  the  Out¬ 
lawry  of  War.1  Mr.  S.  O.  Levinson  and  the 
late  Senator  Knox  began  the  formulation  of  a 
proposal  to  outlaw  war  by  making  it  a  crime 
among  nations.  Professor  John  Dewey,  Judge 
Florence  Allen,  and  Mr.  Raymond  Robins,  are 
outstanding  advocates  of  this  plan.  On  Feb¬ 
ruary  14,  1923,  Senator  Borah  incorporated 
this  idea  in  a  resolution  which  he  introduced  in 
the  Senate. 

The  plan  of  the  Committee  for  the  Outlawry 
of  War  contains  two  provisions  which  seem  to 
the  writer  to  destroy  much  of  the  effectiveness 
of  the  movement,  viz.:  “National  armaments 
shall  be  reduced  to  the  lowest  point  consistent 

1  Full  information  concerning  this  movement  may  be  secured  by 
communicating  with  the  American  Committee  for  the  Outlawry  of 
War,  76  West  Monroe  Street,  Chicago. 

[138] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


with  domestic  safety  and  with  the  necessities  of 
international  requirements.  Maintenance  of 
armies  and  navies  for  defense  against  imminent 
or  actual  attacks,  but  not  for  acts  of  aggression.” 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  the  great  armies  at  the 
present  time  are  justified  by  the  respective  na¬ 
tions  on  exactly  these  grounds.  War  is  never 
going  to  be  outlawed  so  long  as  huge  armies  are 
retained.1 

The  three  pillars  of  this  plan — proclaiming 
war  to  be  a  crime,  the  codification  of  interna¬ 
tional  law,  and  the  establishment  of  an  interna¬ 
tional  court  with  affirmative  jurisdiction — are 
sound,  and  should  be  adopted  by  the  nations. 
This  may  be  done  in  one  of  three  ways — through 
the  Hague  Tribunal,  the  League  of  Nations, 
or  a  world  conference  especially  called  for  this 
purpose.  Every  citizen  who  is  seeking  inter¬ 
national  justice  and  good  should  throw  the 
weight  of  his  influence  behind  this  proposal  to 
outlaw  war  as  a  crime. 

( b )  The  World  Court . — During  the  nine- 

1  For  an  interesting  discussion  in  this  connection  see  Walter 
Lippman’s  article  in  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  August,  1923,  and 
Professor  Dewey’s  article  in  The  New  Republic,  October  3,  1923. 

[139] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


teenth  century  there  was  a  steady  tendency  to¬ 
ward  arbitration  between  nations.  Professor 
John  Bassett  Moore  has  pointed  out  that  of  the 
136  cases  of  arbitration  in  that  century,  117  oc¬ 
curred  during  the  latter  half.  Several  wars  were 
prevented  in  this  way.  The  Hague  Conferences 
of  1899  and  1907  made  a  significant  contribution 
in  this  realm.  The  Hague  Tribunal  as  established 
has,  however,  none  of  the  essential  elements  of  a 
world  court.  It  is  really  only  a  panel  of  judges, 
from  which  arbitrators  may  be  selected  by  two 
or  more  nations  to  settle  a  dispute  which  has 
arisen.  Since  1902  seventeen  cases  have  been 
brought  before  it  for  decision.  It  has  no  per¬ 
manent  bench  of  judges.  All  attempts  to  give 
the  Tribunal  a  permanent  character  have  failed. 

At  the  end  of  the  War  it  was  generally  recog¬ 
nized  that  a  permanent  world  court  was  impera¬ 
tively  needed.  The  Covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations  provided  for  the  establishment  of  such 
a  court.  The  Council  of  the  League  invited  a 
committee  of  eminent  jurists,  including  Mr. 
Elihu  Root  from  the  United  States,  to  aid  in 
formulating  plans  for  such  a  court.  After  sev- 

[140] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


eral  changes  had  been  made,  this  plan  was 
adopted  unanimously  by  the  Assembly  of  the 
League  on  December  13,  1920.  The  protocol 
of  the  International  Court  has  been  ratified  by 
31  nations,  including  France,  Great  Britain, 
Italy  and  Japan,  of  the  major  powers. 

On  Sepember  16,  1921,  the  following  eleven 
judges  and  four  deputy  judges  were  elected  by 
a  majority  vote  of  the  Assembly  and  the  Coun¬ 
cil:  Altamira  of  Spain,  Anzilotti  of  Italy,  Bar- 
boza  of  Brazil,1  de  Bustamente  of  Cuba,  Finlay 
of  Great  Britain,  Huber  of  Switzerland,  Loder 
of  Holland,  Moore  of  the  United  States,  Ny- 
holm  of  Denmark,  Oda  of  Japan,  Weiss  of 
France;  deputy  judges:  Beichmann  of  Nor¬ 
way,  Negulesco  of  Roumania,  Wang  of  China, 
Yovanovitch  of  Jugo-Slavia. 

At  the  present  time  the  Court  has  a  very  lim¬ 
ited  jurisdiction.  The  recommendation  of  the 
committee  of  jurists — that  in  the  last  resort  any 
nation  should  have  the  right  to  sue  another  na¬ 
tion  for  redress  and  compel  appearance  before 
the  International  Court — was  not  adopted.  The 

1  In  1923  Senor  Pessoa  of  Brazil  was  elected  to  succeed  M. 
Barboza,  deceased. 


[141] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


Court  is,  therefore,  competent  to  deal  only  with 
those  cases  where  all  parties  to  a  dispute  are 
willing  to  abide  by  its  decisions.  This  is,  of 
course,  a  very  grave  weakness  which  must  be 
corrected  if  the  Court  is  to  be  effective  in  deal¬ 
ing  with  those  cases  which  are  the  greatest  men¬ 
ace  to  the  peace  of  the  world.  Eighteen  nations 
have,  however,  adhered  to  the  clause  for  obliga¬ 
tory  jurisdiction.  Thus  far  only  matters  of  rela¬ 
tively  minor  importance  have  been  brought  be¬ 
fore  the  Court.  Another  great  handicap  is  the 
absence  of  any  well  defined  code  of  interna¬ 
tional  law. 

The  International  Court  is  the  latest  step  in 
the  long  march  from  armed  combat  to  reasoned 
agreement.  It  is  a  beginning,  not  an  end.  It 
has  serious  limitations  and  flaws  which  will 
wreck  its  usefulness  if  neglected.1  It  can, 
however,  be  changed  when  the  nations  are  so 
minded,  and  undoubtedly  will  be  greatly  modi¬ 
fied  during  the  next  few  years.  The  entrance 


1  For  a  very  severe  criticism  of  the  International  Court  as  now 
constituted  see  “The  United  States  of  America  in  Relation  to  the 
Permanent  Court  of  International  Justice  of  the  League  of 
Nations,”  a  brief  of  192  pages  by  Miss  Frances  Kellor. 

[142] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


of  the  United  States  would  enable  it  to  gain 
strength  more  rapidly. 

( c )  The  League  of  Nations . — Courts  are  es¬ 
sential  to  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  justice. 
But  courts  alone  are  inadequate  for  this  pur¬ 
pose.  There  must  also  be  legislation  and  ad¬ 
ministration.  This  is  just  as  true  with  regard 
to  international  peace  and  justice  as  in  the 
realm  of  municipalities  and  states.  Therefore, 
not  only  is  an  international  court  needed,  but 
international  legislation  and  international  admin¬ 
istration  are  also  essential. 

At  this  point,  however,  we  are  confronted  with 
gigantic  difficulties,  due  to  the  fact  that  nations 
insist  upon  supreme  sovereignty  and  refuse  to 
admit  that  there  is  any  higher  law  than  their  own 
interests  and  desires.  This  is  the  way  tribes  and 
cities  formerly  acted.  For  centuries  barons 
maintained  that  their  own  will  was  sovereign 
and  resisted  all  efforts  toward  national  legisla¬ 
tion  and  administration.  Following  our  Rev¬ 
olutionary  War,  the  thirteen  states  engaged  in 
long  and  bitter  controversy  over  their  respective 
sovereign  rights.  Gradually,  however,  the 

[143] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


sphere  of  legislation,  adjudication  and  adminis¬ 
tration  has  widened  and  now  embraces  states  and 
nations.  We  happen  to  be  living  during  the 
period  of  violent  antagonism  to  the  proposal 
that  this  sphere  should  be  widened  still  further 
to  include  the  international  field  as  well. 

Progress,  however,  is  being  made — although 
at  a  tragically  slow  pace.  It  has  been  a  long 
time  since  Hugo  Grotius,  William  Penn  and 
Kant  submitted  their  respective  plans  for  world 
peace.  Eighty  years  have  passed  since  Tenny¬ 
son  wrote: 

Till  the  war-drum  throbb’d  no  longer,  and 
the  battle  flags  were  furl’d 

In  the  Parliament  of  man,  the  Federation  of 
the  world. 

There  the  common  sense  of  most  shall  hold 
a  fretful  realm  in  awe, 

And  the  kindly  earth  shall  slumber,  lapt  in 
universal  law. 

The  League  of  Nations  is,  of  course,  the  latest 
effort  to  establish  a  Parliament  of  Man.  The 
fact  that  first  impressions  of  the  League  in  the 
United  States  were  formed  during  an  extraor- 

[144] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


dinarily  bitter  and  abusive  political  campaign 
has  proved  to  be  a  collossal  misfortune  for  the 
whole  of  mankind.  The  fact  that  many  people 
believe  that  the  League  was  let  down  from 
heaven  without  spot  or  blemish,  while  others 
are  equally  sure  it  was  fished  out  of  the  gutters 
of  hell,  makes  it  extremely  difficult  for  Ameri¬ 
cans  to  reach  a  balanced  judgment  concerning 
its  virtues  and  its  faults. 

The  real  significance  of  the  League,  as  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Arthur  Sweetser,  an 
American  member  of  the  Secretariat,  is  that  52 
nations — including  all  the  major  powers  except 
the  United  States,  Germany  and  Russia — “have 
solemnly  signed  a  short,  simple  round-robin 
agreement,  first,  not  to  go  to  war  without  arbi¬ 
tration  or  conciliation,  and,  second,  to  work 
together  for  the  general  betterment  of  world 
relations.”1 

There  are  five  ways  in  which  the  League 
seeks  to  avoid  war:  (1)  By  referring  disputes 
to  conciliation  or  arbitration  by  a  third  party; 
(2)  By  providing  for  a  delay  in  beginning  hos- 

1  Quoted  in  Irving  Fisher’s  “League  or  War,”  p.  66.  Professor 
Fisher’s  book  is  an  excellent  discussion  of  this  whole  subject. 

[145] 


WAH:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

tilities,  pending  a  recommendation  or  decision; 
(3)  By  second  and  third  attempts  at  arbitration 
when  necessary;  (4)  by  providing  for  an  eco¬ 
nomic  boycott  against  any  nation  which  refuses 
to  yield  to  the  judgment  of  the  arbitrator;  (5) 
by  resorting  to  common  military  action,  as  a  last 
resort,  against  a  recalcitrant  nation. 

The  League  possesses  six  essential  mecha¬ 
nisms  for  achieving  its  purposes :  an  Assembly,  a 
Council,  an  International  Court,  an  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization,  various  Committees 
and  Commissions,  and  a  permanent  Secretariat. 
The  Assembly  is  a  great  conference,  where  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  various  nations  gather  to  dis¬ 
cuss  all  manner  of  international  questions.  Its 
discussions  are  given  wide  publicity  and  help 
to  bring  about  a  better  understanding  of  world 
problems.  Out  of  such  discussions  are  emerging 
those  common  judgments  of  the  nations  which 
we  call  international  law. 

The  Council  is  the  executive  committee  of  the 
League.  It  meets  frequently  and  is  subject  to 
call  quickly  when  emergencies  arise  which 
threaten  the  peace  of  the  world.  At  the  present 

[146] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


time  the  Council  is  far  more  powerful  than  the 
Assembly,  and  is  dominated  by  two  or  three 
major  powers. 

The  International  Court  has  been  discussed 
in  a  previous  section.  The  International  Labor 
Organization  is  composed  of  four  representa¬ 
tives  of  each  Member  Nation,  two  representing 
the  Government  and  one  each  representing  em¬ 
ployers’  associations  and  labor  organizations. 
An  Annual  Conference  is  held,  at  which  draft 
conventions  are  agreed  upon  and  submitted  to 
national  legislatures  for  ratification.  Thus  far 
the  draft  conventions  submitted  have  dealt  with 
the  principle  of  an  eight-hour  day  and  a  forty- 
eight-hour  week,  provisions  against  unemploy¬ 
ment,  the  employment  of  women  before  and 
after  childbirth,  the  employment  of  women  dur¬ 
ing  the  night,  the  minimum  age  of  employment 
of  children  in  industry,  the  securing  of  a  rest 
period  of  twenty-four  consecutive  hours  for  all 
workers  in  industry,  etc.  The  International  La¬ 
bor  Office  has  a  permanent  secretariat  and  is 
bringing  about  a  better  understanding  of  labor 
problems  and  is  helping  to  lay  foundations  upon 

[147] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


which  effective  international  labor  legislation 
may  be  built. 

Among  the  various  Commissions  and  Com¬ 
mittees  of  the  League  are  the  following: 
Governing  Commission  for  the  Saar  Territory, 
Governing  Commission  for  Danzig,  the  Upper 
Silesian  Mixed  Commission  and  various  other 
Plebiscite  Commissions,  various  Commissions  of 
Inquiry,  Permanent  Mandates  Commission,  Per¬ 
manent  Armaments  Commission,  Committee  on 
the  Financial  Reconstruction  of  Austria,  Gen¬ 
eral  Committee  on  International  Health,  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Intellectual  Cooperation,  Committee 
on  the  Suppression  of  Traffic  in  Women  and 
Children,  Committee  on  the  Traffic  in  Opium, 
Committee  on  Repatriation  of  Prisoners  of  War, 
Committee  on  Russian  Relief,  Committee  on 
Relief  of  Greek  and  Armenian  Refuges,  etc. 

The  Secretariat  is  a  permanent  civil  service 
for  the  League.  At  the  head  there  is  a  Secre¬ 
tary-General,  assisted  by  a  Deputy  Secretary- 
General,  two  Undersecretaries,  and  a  staff  of 
300  members. 

Some  of  the  chief  accomplishments  of  the 
[148] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


League  thus  far  are  as  follows:  Assisted  in  the 
prevention  of  four  wars — between  Sweden  and 
Finland  over  the  Aaland  Islands,  between  Po¬ 
land  and  Germany  over  Upper  Silesia,  between 
Albania  and  Jugo-Slavia  over  a  boundary  line, 
between  Poland  and  Lithuania — although  it 
must  be  admitted  that  two  or  three  of  these  set¬ 
tlements  may  not  prove  permanently  satisfac¬ 
tory;  the  launching  of  the  International  Court; 
promotion  of  health,  morals,  education,  labor 
legislation,  and  open  diplomacy  by  the  registra¬ 
tion  of  treaties;  the  financial  resuscitation  of 
Austria. 

The  list  is,  of  course,  conspicuous  for  its 
omissions.  It  does  not  include  the  major  prob¬ 
lems  which  are  threatening  the  very  eocistence 
of  European  civilization .  No  friend  of  the 
League  is  justified  in  closing  his  eyes  to  the  fact 
that  thus  far  it  has  played  a  relatively  minor 
part  in  international  affairs.  Such  persons 
should  give  careful  attention  to  the  serious  crit¬ 
icisms  of  the  League  which  are  being  made  by 
some  of  the  ablest  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  other  countries.  It  is  supreme  folly  to 

[149] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

ignore  the  kind  of  criticism  advanced  by  Miss 
Frances  Kellor,  who  maintains  that  “eight  mem¬ 
ber  states  of  the  League  of  Nations  have  re¬ 
sorted  to  arms  in  violation  of  Articles  XI,  XII, 
XIII  and  XY  of  the  Covenant,  none  having 
first  submitted  its  dispute  to  arbitration;  and 
no  member  state  has  been  penalized  under  Arti¬ 
cle  XVI.  Three  states,  under  the  administra¬ 
tive  control  of  the  League  of  Nations,  have 
grievances  of  a  grave  character  which  the  League 
has  not  submitted  to  judicial  review;  in  one 
other  state  the  League  of  Nations  has  validated 
an  alleged  injustice  without  inquiry  or  knowl¬ 
edge.  Four  member  states  of  the  League  of 
Nations  are  in  dispute  over  territorial  rights,  in 
which  disputes  the  League  of  Nations  has  not 
intervened  to  secure  a  settlement  by  arbitral 
methods.”1 

An  evaluation  of  the  relative  successes  and 
failures  of  the  League  to  date  is  not,  however, 
an  adequate  answer  to  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  it  deserves  and  should  receive  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Many 

1  See  Miss  Kellor’s  brief  for  a  relentless  criticism  of  the  League 
as  constituted  at  present. 

[150] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


of  the  criticisms  of  the  League  are  undoubtedly 
justified.  It  should  be  pointed  out,  however, 
that  many  of  these  are  not  really  criticisms  of 
the  League  so  much  as  they  are  criticisms  of  the 
various  Governments . 

Critics  of  the  League  often  fail  to  give  ade¬ 
quate  consideration  to  the  manner  of  its  birth 
and  the  tumultuous  world  in  which  its  infancy 
has  been  spent.  The  years  from  1914  to  1919 
saw  the  hatreds  and  baser  passions  of  mankind 
raised  to  new  heights,  whole  populations  were 
fed  upon  falsehood  and  misrepresentation,  the 
military  and  economic  collapse  of  the  Central 
Powers  gave  an  unparalleled  opportunity  to 
the  forces  of  revenge  and  greed,  nationalism  was 
highly  intensified  by  the  patriotism  of  wartime, 
fear  and  suspicion  abounded  everywhere,  faith 
in  the  power  of  persuasion  and  goodwill  were 
shattered  by  years  of  violence  and  bloodshed. 
From  one  angle  of  the  situation,  there  had  never 
been  an  hour  during  the  past  hundred  years  more 
unpropitious  for  the  birth  of  the  League  than 
at  the  close  of  the  most  destructive  war  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  human  race.  The  hatreds 

[151] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


and  vile  passions  released  by  the  war  still  exist; 
many  of  them  are  being  intensified  by  the  vicious 
treaty;  which  was  itself  the  natural  and  logical 
outcome  of  violence  and  untruth. 

The  extreme  sensitiveness  of  the  various 
powers  with  regard  to  national  sovereignty  has 
been  responsible  for  the  withholding  of  neces¬ 
sary  power  from  the  League.  This  is  exactly 
what  has  happened  repeatedly  in  the  evolution 
of  law  and  government.  It  is  the  old  story  of 
individuals,  families,  tribes,  cities  and  states  be¬ 
ing  jealous  of  their  sovereign  rights  and  refus¬ 
ing  to  grant  adequate  power  to  social  organiza¬ 
tion.1 

An  almost  exact  parallel  to  the  present  fear 
of  the  League  by  sovereign  nations  is  found 
in  the  attitude  of  the  thirteen  free  and  inde¬ 
pendent  States  toward  the  Continental  Con¬ 
gress,  following  our  Revolutionary  War.  Mr. 
James  Madison,  one  of  the  men  who  had  most 
to  do  with  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  said : 
“The  principal  difficulties  which  embarrassed 


1  See  “The  Prevention  of  War,”  by  Philip  Kerr  and  Lionel  Cur¬ 
tis,  Chapter  I,  for  a  most  illuminating  analysis  of  extreme  national 
sovereignty  as  a  cause  of  war. 


[152] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


the  progress,  and  retarded  the  completion,  of 

the  plan  of  Confederation  may  be  traced  to — 

* 

first,  the  natural  repugnance  of  parties  to  a  re¬ 
linquishment  of  power;  secondly,  a  natural  jeal¬ 
ousy  of  its  abuse  in  other  hands  than  their  own ; 
thirdly,  the  rule  of  suffrage  among  parties  whose 
inequality  in  size  did  not  correspond  with  that 
of  their  wealth,  or  of  their  military  or  free  pop¬ 
ulation;  fourthly,  the  selection  and  definition  of 
the  powers,  at  once  necessary  to  the  federal  head, 
and  safe  to  the  several  members.  But  the  radi¬ 
cal  infirmity  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
was  the  dependence  of  Congress  on  the  volun¬ 
tary  and  simultaneous  compliance  with  its  re¬ 
quisitions  by  so  many  independent  communi¬ 
ties,  each  consulting  more  or  less  its  particular 
interests  and  convenience,  and  distrusting  the 
compliance  of  others.”1 

In  this  connection,  Professor  J.  B.  McMas- 
ter  has  pointed  out  that  “the  state  into  which 
Congress  had  fallen  was  most  wretched.  Rudely 
formed  amid  the  agonies  of  a  revolution,  the 
Confederation  had  never  been  revised  and 

1  “Journal  of  the  Federal  Convention,  kept  by  James  Madison,” 
edited  by  E.  H.  Scott,  pp.  32,  34. 


[153] 


WAR :  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

brought  nearer  to  perfection  in  a  sense  of  tran¬ 
quillity.  Each  of  the  thirteen  States  the  Union 
bound  together  retained  all  the  rights  of  sover¬ 
eignty,  and  asserted  them  punctiliously  against 
the  central  government.  Each  reserved  to  itself 
the  right  to  put  up  mints,  to  strike  money,  to 
levy  taxes,  to  raise  armies,  to  say  what  articles 
should  come  into  its  ports  free  and  what  should 
be  made  to  pay  duty.  Toward  the  Continental 
Government  they  acted  precisely  as  if  they  were 
dealing  with  a  foreign  power.  .  .  .  Every  act 
of  that  body  was  scrutinized  with  the  utmost 
care.  The  transfer  of  the  most  trivial  authority 
beyond  the  borders  of  the  States  was  made  with 
protestations,  with  trembling,  and  with  fear. 
.  .  .  Delaware  and  Georgia  ceased  to  be  repre¬ 
sented.  .  .  .  The  House  was  repeatedly  forced 
to  adjourn  day  after  day  for  want  of  a  quorum. 
On  more  than  one  occasion  these  adjournments 
covered  a  period  of  thirteen  consecutive  days. 
.  .  .  On  the  largest  ballot  the  House  could 
cast,  six  votes  could  make  the  question  pass  in 
the  negative.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 
that  Congress  speedily  degenerated  into  a  de- 

[154] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


bating  club,  and  a  debating  club  of  no  very  high 
order.  Neglected  by  its  own  members,  insulted 
and  threatened  by  mutinous  troops,  reviled  by 
the  press,  and  forced  to  wander  from  city  to 
city  in  search  of  an  abiding  place,  its  acts  pos¬ 
sessed  no  national  importance  whatever.  .  .  . 
Congress  possessed  but  the  semblance  of  power. 
The  States  possessed  the  substance.  Congress 
could  merely  entreat,  persuade,  suggest.  The 
States  could  act.”1 

The  consequences  of  all  this  was  described 
by  Professor  McMaster  in  the  following  words: 
“The  newspapers  were  full  of  bankrupt  notices. 
The  farmers’  taxes  amounted  to  near  the  rent 
of  their  farms.  Mechanics  wandered  up  and 
down  the  streets  of  every  city,  destitute  of 
work.  Ships,  shut  out  from  every  port  of  Eu¬ 
rope,  lay  rotting  in  the  harbors.  The  American 
name  was  insulted  at  every  court.  Would  any 
person  of  sense  declare,  after  beholding  such  a 
picture  as  this,  that  times  were  not  hard,  that 
the  country  was  not  upon  the  brink  of  ruin,  that 

1J.  B.  McMaster,  “A  History  of  the  People  of  the  United 
States,”  Vol.  I,  pp.  130-134. 


[155] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

a  new  and  vigorous  Federal  Government  was 
not  needed?”1 

Fortunately  for  the  whole  world,  the  thirteen 
states,  after  six  dangerous  years,  recognized 
their  mistakes  and,  by  voluntarily  relinquishing 
certain  of  their  sovereign  rights ,  formed  a  Fed¬ 
eral  Union  with  real  power. 

The  nations  of  the  earth  are  now  facing  ex¬ 
actly  this  same  issue  with  regard  to  the  League. 
The  world  is  now  a  unit — politically,  economi¬ 
cally,  hygienically,  intellectually  and  morally. 
Therefore,  corresponding  world  organization  is 
essential.  Four  steps  are  imperative  if  the 
League  is  to  function  effectively:  (1)  The  inclu¬ 
sion  of  all  nations  in  its  membership,  with  Ger¬ 
many  and  Russia  assured  an  equal  place  with 
the  Allied  powers.  (2)  Less  domination  by  the 
leaders  of  two  or  three  great  nations  and  an  in¬ 
creasing  degree  of  democratic  control.  ( 3 )  The 
outlawry  of  war  and  the  demobilization  of  huge 
armies.  (4)  The  willingness  of  the  nations  to 
strengthen  greatly  the  powers  of  the  League 
and  to  abide  by  its  decisions. 

*J.  B.  McMaster,  “A  History  of  the  People  of  the  United 
States,”  Vol.  I,  p.  425. 

[156] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


Criticism  of  the  Continental  Congress  for  not 
solving  the  problems  of  the  thirteen  states  was 
just  as  reasonable  as  criticism  of  the  League  for 
not  solving  the  major  problems  of  the  hour,  such 
as  the  Ruhr,  Reparations,  Corfu,  etc.  The  na¬ 
tions,  by  refusing  to  recognize  that  the  world  is 
now  a  unit,  may  withhold  adequate  power  from 
the  League  and  continue  to  disregard  its  decis¬ 
ions — as  the  thirteen  states  once  treated  the  Con¬ 
tinental  Congress.  But  if  they  do,  there  can 
be  only  one  outcome :  continued  hostility,  further 
wars,  and  the  destruction  of  civilization.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  alternative  to  the  creation  of  ef¬ 
fective  international  processes  of  justice — legis¬ 
lation,  adjudication  and  administration — save 
war  and  desolation. 

( 5 )  Creation  of  an  International  Mind 
The  prevention  of  war  depends,  in  the  last 
analysis,  upon  new  attitudes  of  mind.  No  plan 
or  process  can  prevent  war  if  the  nations  are 
bent  upon  fighting.  The  really  important  task 
before  us,  therefore,  is  the  creation  of  a  new 


[157] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

state  of  mind  which  will  transcend  national 
boundaries. 

We  may  take  hope  from  what  has  already 
been  accomplished  in  widening  the  area  of  law. 
It  was  not  so  many  thousands  of  years  ago — 
indeed,  only  a  mere  fraction  of  the  total  dura¬ 
tion  of  man’s  existence  upon  the  earth — that  the 
family  and  the  tribe  were  the  extreme  bounda¬ 
ries  of  good  will.  Less  than  five  hundred  years 
ago  it  was  the  city,  and  in  America  little  more 
than  a  century  ago  it  was  the  state.  And  yet  it 
is  now  universally  admitted  that  loyalty  to  the 
United  States  Government  does  not  in  any  sense 
make  a  man  a  less  loyal  citizen  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  or  of  the  City  of  Cleveland.  Some  of 
these  days  we  shall  learn  a  similar  lesson  with 
regard  to  international  government.  There  is 
really  no  more  reason  why  native-born  citizens 
of  Poland  and  Lithuania  should  hate  each  other 
than  that  Italian-born  citizens  of  New  York 
should  hate  Russian-born  citizens  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania.  No  section  of  Europe  has  a  more  diverse 
racial  population  than  has  New  York,  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  or  Illinois.  Experience  has  demonstrated 

[158] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


that  persons  of  different  races  can  get  along 
without  fighting,  if  they  are  not  spurred  on  by 
artificially  created  national  antagonisms. 

The  task  before  us,  therefore,  is  to  widen  the 
area  of  good  will  so  that  law  and  orderly  gov¬ 
ernment  may  transcend  national  boundaries  and 
include  all  humanity.  Some  call  this  a  dream, 
as  men  in  other  days  called  national  unity  a 
dream.  But  as  men  dream,  so  they  achieve. 
Citizens  of  a  vast  republic  stretching  across  a 
whole  continent,  coming  as  they  have  by  the  mil¬ 
lion  from  every  corner  of  the  earth,  and  achiev¬ 
ing  as  they  have  an  imperfect  but  truly  marvel¬ 
ous  national  unity,  should  not  find  it  difficult 
to  dream  of  world  unity;  and,  recognizing  the 
manifold  blessings  of  unity,  should  put  forth 
every  effort  in  seeking  its  realization  on  a  world 
basis. 

The  concrete  measures  which  should  be 
adopted  as  means  toward  such  an  end  are  too 
numerous  to  receive  detailed  consideration  in 
such  a  short  discussion  as  this.  Indeed,  they  are 
yet  to  be  formulated  in  any  comprehensive  man¬ 
ner.  Such  an  enumeration,  however,  would 

[159] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


surely  include:  a  new  evaluation  of  tariff  poli¬ 
cies;  an  equitable  immigration  policy,  with  scru¬ 
pulously  courteous  and  fair  treatment  of  all 
alien  peoples;  especial  consideration  for  foreign 
students  in  our  colleges  and  universities ;  the  re¬ 
moval  from  our  histories  of  all  national  propa¬ 
ganda  and  efforts  to  discredit  other  peoples;  the 
establishment  of  a  Department  of  Peace,  with  a 
Secretary  sitting  in  the  Cabinet,  and  a  large 
budget;  private  and  governmental  subsidies  for 
foreign  travel  and  study,  after  the  precedent 
set  by  our  Government  in  making  available,  out 
of  principal  and  interest  of  a  part  of  the  Boxer 
indemnity,  a  fund  of  more  than  $28,000,000  to 
be  used  for  the  education  of  from  50  to  100 
Chinese  students  in  American  colleges  and  uni¬ 
versities  each  year  until  1940;  the  strengthen¬ 
ing  of  the  efforts  of  educators,  doctors  and  mis¬ 
sionaries  throughout  the  world. 

These,  then,  are  some  of  the  ways  by  means 
of  which  further  wars  may  be  prevented:  the 
abandonment  of  economic  imperialism,  disarm¬ 
ament,  abolition  of  secret  diplomacy,  erection  of 
international  processes  of  justice,  including  the 

[160] 


HOW  CAN  WARS  BE  PREVENTED? 


outlawry  of  war,  a  world  court  and  the  League 
of  Nations,  and  the  creation  of  an  international 
mind. 

If  such  measures  as  these  are  rejected,  and 
the  various  nations  seek  to  gain  and  maintain 
their  own  selfish  interests  by  the  assertion  of 
military  force,  it  is  only  a  question  of  time  until 
another  world  war  breaks  out,  and  concerning 
Western  civilization  the  verdict  of  history  will 
be  handed  down:  Weighed  in  the  Balances  and 
Found  Wanting! 


[161] 


Chapter  IV 


WHAT  SHALL  THE  CHURCHES  DO 

ABOUT  WAR? 

The  effort  to  outlaw  war  legally  is  a  step  in 
the  right  direction,  and  should  be  continued  un¬ 
til  all  war  is  declared  to  be  criminal  by  the  law 
of  the  nations.  But  history  reveals  clearly  the 
improbability  of  this  happening  until  the  com¬ 
mon  conscience  of  mankind  has  declared  all  war 
to  be  wrong.  That  is  to  say,  ethical  judgments 
precede  and  are  the  foundation  upon  which  legal 
judgments  are  based.  Law  is  only  a  codifica¬ 
tion  of  customary  habits  of  thought  and  action. 
In  the  last  analysis,  then,  the  outlawry  of  war 
is  an  ethical  problem. 

Because  of  the  predominance  of  the  ethical 
aspect  of  this  question,  our  concluding  chapter 
is  devoted  to  a  consideration  of  the  attitude  of 

the  churches  toward  war.  What  should  the 

» 

churches  do  about  war?  Should  they  refuse  to 
bless  any  future  war? 

[162] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


Before  attempting  to  answer  these  questions, 
it  is  well  to  remind  ourselves  as  to  the  essential 
nature  of  our  problem,  and  thus  avoid  confusing 
the  main  issue  with  other  issues  which  are  irrel¬ 
evant  to  the  present  discussion,  although  they 
may  possess  great  importance  in  themselves.  The 
real  problem  is  this:  Should  the  churches  turn 
away  from  war  as  a  sinful  method  of  dealing 
with  other  nations ,  that  is ,  a  method  which  no 
Christian  should  ever  sanction  or  adopt? 

Interesting  byways  which  might  be  followed 
with  profit  are:  Is  the  use  of  physical  force  ever 
justifiable  ?  What  should  be  our  attitude  toward 
police — local,  national  or  international?  These 
questions  deserve  more  careful  attention  than 
they  have  received  thus  far.  Whatever  points  of 
agreement  there  may  be  between  the  use  of 
force,  police,  and  war,  there  are  so  many  points 
of  serious  difference  that  to  reason  by  analogy 
in  this  discussion  is  to  follow  an  ineffective  line 
of  thought,  one  that  may  prevent  a  clear  judg¬ 
ment. 

It  is  not  necessary  at  this  point  to  discuss  the 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  all  past  wars  were 

[163] 


WAH:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


sinful  or  to  argue  the  matter  as  to  whether  some 
wars  have  resulted  in  greater  good  than  evil. 
Upon  these  questions  there  is  room  for  differ¬ 
ences  of  opinion.  We  are  here  concerned  with 
future  wars. 

If  the  sowing  of  hate  and  fear  and  armaments 
does  bring  forth  another  great  war  in  a  decade 
or  a  generation,  what  sort  of  war  will  it  be? 
What  weapons  will  be  used?  What  will  be  the 
consequences  ? 

Since  the  whole  history  of  war  reveals  its  pro¬ 
gressive  destructiveness,  it  seems  clear  that  if 
there  is  another  great  conflict  it  will  be  vastly 
more  destructive  than  was  the  World  War.  In¬ 
deed,  many  of  the  weapons  and  methods  of  1914 
were  out  of  date  by  1918,  so  rapid  were  the 
strides  in  military  science.  Several  books  have 
recently  appeared  which  indicate  some  of  the 
probable  changes  in  wars  of  the  future  and  en¬ 
able  us  to  get  a  glimpse  of  what  is  in  store  for 
mankind  if  another  great  war  comes.1 

There  is  general  agreement  that  gases  and 


1  See  Victor  Lefebure,  “The  Riddle  of  the  Rhine:  Chemical 
Strategy  in  Peace  and  War” ;  Colonel  J.  F.  C.  Fuller,  “The  Refor¬ 
mation  of  War”;  Will  Irwin,  “The  Next  War.” 

[164] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 

chemicals  will  play  the  dominant  part  in  any 
future  war.  This  was  true  in  the  closing  months 
of  the  last  one.  Gas  was  the  main  reliance  of 
the  Germans  in  the  great  March  assault  in  1918. 
during  which  time  the  German  guns  were  firing 
more  than  50  per  cent  of  gas  and  chemicals. 
During  the  war  France  produced  2,000  tons  of 
mustard  gas  and  17  million  gas  shells.  The  total 
French  production  of  chlorine  and  poison  gas 
was  50,000  tons.  The  British  produced  an  equal 
amount.  During  the  weeks  just  preceding  the 
Armistice,  the  American  government  was  pro¬ 
ducing  vast  quantities  of  gas  shells  and  other 
chemicals  for  war  purposes.  Mr.  Will  Irwin 
has  described  our  own  Lewisite  gas  as  follows: 
“It  was  invisible;  it  was  a  sinking  gas,  which 
would  search  out  the  refugees  of  dugouts  and 
cellars;  if  breathed,  it  killed  at  once — and  it 
killed  not  only  through  the  lungs.  Wherever 
it  settled  on  the  skin,  it  produced  a  poison  which 
penetrated  the  system  and  brought  almost  cer¬ 
tain  death.  It  was  inimical  to  all  cell-life,  ani¬ 
mal  or  vegetable.  Masks  alone  were  of  no  use 
against  it.  Further  it  had  fifty-five  times  the 

[165] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


'spread’  of  any  poison  gas  hitherto  used  in  the 
war.”1  Fortunately,  the  Armistice  came  before 
there  was  time  for  this  gas  to  be  used  in  the  last 
war.  Research  is  still  going  on,  however,  and 
enormous  strides  in  chemical  warfare  are  being 
made  every  year. 

A  recent  aeroplane  trip  from  Cologne  to  Lon¬ 
don,  during  which  we  crossed  the  English  chan¬ 
nel  in  exactly  thirteen  minutes,  enabled  the 
writer  to  understand  more  clearly  the  part  aero¬ 
planes  will  play  in  any  future  war.  Every  year 
a  more  complete  mastery  of  the  air  is  being 
gained.  It  is  already  possible  to  manipulate 
aeroplanes  by  wireless.  Tens  of  thousands  of 
planes  will  be  available  for  use  in  another  great 
war.  Civilian  populations  and  soldiers  alike  will 
be  within  the  zone  of  battle. 

Colonel  Fuller  has  painted  a  picture  of  a  pos¬ 
sible  scene  in  the  future:  “I  believe  that,  in  fu¬ 
ture  warfare,  great  cities,  such  as  London,  will 
be  attacked  from  the  air,  and  that  a  fleet  of  500 
aeroplanes  each  carrying  500  ten-pound  bombs 
of,  let  us  suppose,  mustard  gas,  might  cause 


1  “The  Next  War,”  p.  37. 
[166] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 

200,000  minor  casualities  and  throw  the  whole 
city  into  a  panic  within  half  an  hour  of  their  ar¬ 
rival.  Picture,  if  you  can,  what  the  result  will 
be :  London  for  several  days  will  be  one  vast  rav¬ 
ing  Bedlam,  the  hospitals  will  be  stormed,  traf¬ 
fic  will  cease,  the  homeless  will  shriek  for  help, 
the  city  will  be  in  pandemonium.”1 

It  is  quite  possible  that  in  a  small  war  some  of 
the  most  terrible  weapons  might  not  be  used. 
But  it  seems  unquestionable  that  even  a  small 
one  would  result  in  attitudes  and  practices  which 
are  a  fundamental  denial  of  Jesus’  way  of  life. 
It  should  be  remembered  that  the  aggressive  or 
more  guilty  nation  has  the  power  to  determine 
which  weapons  shall  be  used.  There  is  an  abun¬ 
dance  of  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  new  instruments  of  destruction  by  one 
nation  is  usually  followed  by  the  adoption 
of  similar  weapons  by  all  belligerents,  no 
matter  how  severely  some  of  them  may  de¬ 
nounce  the  enemy  for  having  introduced  such 
diabolical  methods  of  warfare.  Moreover,  there 
is  always  the  danger  of  a  small  war  becoming 


1  “The  Reformation  of  War,”  p.  150. 


[167] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


a  great  one.  Insignificant  incidents  have  often 
been  the  occasion  for  the  outbreak  of  a  great 
conflict. 

The  whole  history  of  war  seems  to  indicate 
that  the  next  great  war  will  be  at  least  as  de¬ 
structive  of  physical  and  moral  values  as  the 
last  one,  and  in  all  probability  will  be  even  more 
calamitous.  On  a  basis  of  the  actual  facts  con¬ 
cerning  the  World  War  and  in  view  of  the  prob¬ 
able  nature  of  any  great  war  in  the  future,  what 
shall  the  churches  do  about  it? 

The  writer  believes  that  the  churches  should 
refuse  to  give  their  approval  to  any  future  war, 
for  three  reasons:  (1)  Because  war  is  inherently 
and  essentially  a  supreme  violation  of  Jesus’ 
way  of  life;  (2)  Because  war  is  ineffective  as  a 
means  of  furthering  Christ’s  Kingdom  and  is 
self-defeating  in  its  very  nature;  (3)  Because 
the  absolute  repudiation  of  war  by  individuals, 
groups  and  corporate  bodies  is  the  most  effective 
way  of  compelling  governments  to  abandon  the 
war  system  and  to  discover  more  adequate  means 
of  securing  safety  and  justice. 

[168] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


i 

(1)  War  is  inherently  and  essentially  a  su¬ 
preme  violation  of  Jesus ’  way  of  life .  We  are 
often  told  that  it  is  useless  to  ask  whether  or  not 
Jesus  ever  sanctions  war,  since  he  did  not  have 
to  deal  with  this  question,  and  the  record  of  his 
teaching  does  not  contain  a  single  reference 
either  in  defense  or  in  condemnation  of  war. 

Is  it  true  that  Jesus  never  faced  a  war  situa¬ 
tion?1  Where  did  he  live?  What  was  the  po¬ 
litical  status  of  his  country?  What  were  his  fel¬ 
low  citizens  thinking  and  doing  throughout  his 
lifetime?  What  were  the  outstanding  national 
problems  of  his  day? 

During  the  days  of  Jesus,  Palestine  was  a 
conquered  province  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Af¬ 
ter  the  days  of  his  infancy,  it  was  ruled  by  Ro¬ 
man  procurators.  Roman  fortifications  had 
been  erected  and  garrisons  of  Roman  soldiers 
were  found  throughout  the  land.  The  Roman 

1  For  an  extraordinarily  illuminating  discussion  of  this  whole 
question  see  Professor  V.  G.  Simkhovitch,  “Toward  the  Under¬ 
standing  of  Jesus.”  Paper  covered  copies  may  be  secured  for  25 
cents  from  Kirby  Page,  311  Division  Ave.,  Hasbrouck  Heights, 
N.  J. 


[169] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


authorities  possessed  full  military  and  civil 
power.  The  Roman  Procurator  even  had  the 
power  of  choosing  the  Jewish  High  Priest,  and 
possessed  full  control  over  the  Sanhedrin. 

Captivity  was  no  new  thing  for  the  Jews. 
Their  whole  history  is  a  record  of  an  almost  con¬ 
tinuous  struggle  for  freedom.  During  the  three 
centuries  preceding  the  birth  of  Jesus,  they  had 
been  under  the  yoke  of  the  Persians,  the  Mace¬ 
donians,  the  Egyptians,  the  Syrians,  the  Xdu- 
maeans  and  the  Romans.  And  yet  no  people 
have  ever  lived  who  valued  freedom  more  highly 
and  who  resisted  tyranny  more  vigorously.  For 
a  brief  time  under  the  Maccabees  they  gained 
their  freedom,  only  to  lose  it  again.  They  never 
became  reconciled  to  bondage.  There  was  con¬ 
stant  agitation,  followed  by  numerous  riots  and 
rebellions.  In  the  year  45  B.  C.  Ezechias  of 
Galilee  and  a  large  body  of  followers  staged  an 
unsuccessful  revolt  and  were  slain  by  the  soldiers 
of  Plerod.  In  the  year  6  A.  D.  Judas  the  Gal¬ 
ilean  led  a  revolutionary  movement  against  the 
Romans.  Concerning  this  band  Josephus,  a  pro- 
Roman  Jewish  historian  said:  “These  men  agree 

[170] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


in  all  other  things  with  the  Pharisaic  notions; 
but  they  have  an  inviolable  attachment  to  lib¬ 
erty,  and  say  that  God  is  to  be  their  only  Lord 
and  Master.  They  also  do  not  mind  dying  any 
death,  nor  indeed  do  they  heed  the  deaths  of 
their  relations  and  friends,  nor  could  the  fear 
of  death  make  them  call  any  man  their  master.” 

Josephus  tells  us  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
put  to  death  for  purely  political  reasons,  be¬ 
cause  Herod  “feared  lest  the  great  influence 
John  had  over  the  people  might  put  it  into  his 
power  and  inclination  to  raise  a  rebellion.” 
Barabbas,  for  whose  release  the  mob  cried  out 
to  Pilate,  was  a  revolutionist.  Mark  says : 
“And  there  was  one  named  Barabbas,  which  lay 
bound  with  them  that  had  made  insurrection 
with  him,  who  had  committed  murder  in  the  in¬ 
surrection.” 

The  historian  Mommsen  gives  the  year  44  A. 
D.  as  the  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  - 
Roman  war.  In  this  connection,  Professor  V. 
G.  Simkhovitch,  of  Columbia  University,  says: 
“The  rebellion  of  the  Jews  against  Rome  rather 
begins  with  the  power  of  Rome  over  the  Jews; 

[171] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


and  in  the  same  degree  as  the  Roman  power  over 
the  Jews  increased,  did  the  political  reaction 
against  that  power,  the  revolution  against  Rome, 
increased  and  spread.  The  Jewish  revolutionists 
against  Rome  were  called  by  the  Romans  ban¬ 
dits  or  robbers.  Later  they  were  called  scitarii, 
‘men  with  knives.’  The  polite  Josephus  fol¬ 
lowed  the  Romans  in  calling  them  robbers;  but 
whenever  he  tells  us  about  the  constant  war¬ 
fare,  about  either  the  Romans’  or  Herod’s  ex¬ 
ploits  against  the  robbers,  it  becomes  clear  that 
they  are  religious  patriots  who  are  fighting  and 
dying  for  their  country.  ...  It  is  obvious  there 
that  we  are  dealing  not  with  mercenary  bandits, 
but  with  political  and  religious  devotees  who  pre¬ 
fer  death  to  submission.”  Finally,  in  the  year 
70  after  Christ,  the  temple  was  destroyed,  Jeru¬ 
salem  sacked,  and  the  population  slain,  cruci¬ 
fied  or  sold  into  slavery. 

It  was  in  such  a  world  that  Jesus  lived.  The 
whole  of  his  lifetime  was  spent  during  this  period 
of  lament  or  actual  conflict  with  Rome.  “At  the 
given  time,”  says  Professor  Simkhovitch,  “there 
was  but  one  problem  for  the  Jews — a  single,  all- 

[172] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 

absorbing  national  problem,  that  became  under 
the  circumstances  the  religious  problem  as  well. 
It  was  the  problem  of  existence,  the  problem  of 
escape  from  certain  annihilation.  One  was  the 
problem,  but  the  solutions  were  several.  Clearly 
the  Jewish  nationalists  and  the  Herodians  could 
not  possibly  agree  upon  the  same  solution. 
Even  the  religious  nationalists  of  the  time  dif¬ 
fered  considerably.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  their  dif¬ 
ferences  as  to  method,  their  hope  was  the  same. 
This  hope  was  the  national  salvation,  and  their 
reliance  was  upon  Messiah,  the  Christ,  the 
anointed  King.  .  .  .  The  entire  literature  of 
the  time  is  a  fragmentary  expression  of  this 
quickened  life  of  the  nation.  The  records  of 
every  Messianic  hope  contain  a  preamble  some¬ 
what  similar  to  the  especially  well  phrased  pas¬ 
sage  in  the  Second  Esdras.  ‘And  now,  O  Lord, 
behold  these  nations,  which  are  reputed  as  noth¬ 
ing,  be  lords  over  us,  and  devour  us.  But  we 
thy  people,  whom  thou  has  called  thy  firstborn, 
thy  only  begotten,  and  thy  fervent  lover,  are 
given  into  their  hands.  If  the  world  now  be 
made  for  our  sakes,  why  do  we  not  possess  for 

[173] 


W All :  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


an  inheritance  our  world?  How  long  shall  it 
endure?’  ” 

That  Jesus  regarded  himself  as  the  Messiah 
is  clearly  revealed  in  the  Gospels.  The  great 
difference  between  Jesus  and  his  contempora¬ 
ries  was  in  the  interpretation  of  the  nature  and 
methods  of  the  Messiah.  The  Jews  were  ex¬ 
pecting  One  who  should  free  them  from  the 
military  bondage  of  Rome.  In  this  connection, 
Professor  E.  C.  Scott,  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  says:  “This  indirect  evidence  afforded 
by  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  is  borne  out  by  the 
express  words  of  Philo  in  a  passage  which  evi¬ 
dently  reflects  the  prevailing  Jewish  belief  in 
his  time:  ‘According  to  the  prophets  a  man  will 
appear  who  wages  war  and  conquers  powerful 
nations,  while  God  sends  the  needed  help  to  his 
saint.’  Above  all,  we  have  unmistakable  testi¬ 
mony  in  the  numerous  popular  tumults,  half¬ 
religious  and  half-political,  which  took  place  in 
the  time  of  the  Roman  procurators.  Our  chief 
authority  for  the  state  of  popular  feeling  in  the 
time  of  Christ  is  the  New  Testament  itself.  .  .  . 
To  the  people  at  large  the  Messiah  remained 

[174] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 

i 

what  lie  had  been  to  Isaiah  and  his  contempo¬ 
raries — the  Son  of  David  who  would  bring  vic¬ 
tory  and  prosperity  to  the  Jewish  nation.” 

In  the  light  of  this  popular  expectation,  new 
significance  is  given  to  many  incidents  recorded 
in  the  Gospels ;  such  as  the  enthusiastic  response 
of  the  multitudes  to  the  message  of  John  the 
Baptist  concerning  the  imminent  coming  of  the 
Messiah;  and  the  triumphant  entrance  of  Jesus 
into  Jerusalem,  with  the  masses  spreading  their 
garments  in  his  path,  and  crying  out:  Hosanna 
to  the  Son  of  David! 

It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  Jesus  could 
have  failed  to  consider  seriously  the  proposal 
of  the  zealots  and  others  of  his  followers  that 
he  should  lead  them  against  Rome.  Many  years 
ago,  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  pointed  out  the  real 
significance  of  one  of  the  great  temptations  of 
Jesus:  “This  last  temptation  was  the  subtlest, 
and  therefore  the  most  dangerous  of  all.  In 
the  midst  of  a  ruined  world  stands  Jesus,  the 
mournful  spectator  of  its  woes.  .  .  .  He  finds 
a  religious  party  expectant  of  a  Messiah,  anx¬ 
ious  for  a  Messiah,  and  ready  to  cast  the  whole 

[175] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


weight  of  their  prestige  and  influence  in  with 
any  one  who  gives  promise  of  restoring  to  the 
nation  its  ancient  glory  and  will  suffer  them  to 
be  sharers  in  it.  For  the  establishment  of  such 
a  kingdom,  Christ  had  many  advantages.  He 
had  the  grace  which  attracts  men,  the  eloquence 
which  arouses  their  courage  and  inspires  them. 
A  picture  of  a  nation  long  enslaved,  now  dis¬ 
enthralled,  restored,  reformed,  purified  by  his 
power — this  is  the  picture  the  wily  tempter  pre¬ 
sented  to  his  imagination.  Nor  this  alone. 
Alexander  going  forth  from  the  little  kingdom 
of  Macedon,  had  vanquished  the  world.  Al¬ 
ready  Greece  had  lost  its  vitality;  already  the 
power  of  Rome  was  passing  away,  although  its 
apparent  dominion  was  at  its  height.  To  a  de¬ 
voutly  enkindled  imagination  it  would  not  seem 
impossible  that  the  conditions  of  the  present 
might  be  reversed  in  the  future.  The  kingdoms 
of  the  earth  might  yet  be  subject  to  a  redeemed 
and  ransomed  Israel.  The  Jewish  people  ex¬ 
pected  it.  The  prophets  seemed  to  most  of 
their  readers  to  promise  it.  The  kingdoms  of 

[176] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


the  earth  and  all  their  glories  were  seen  as  in  a 
vision.” 

Several  explanations  may  be  offered  as  to 
why  Jesus  turned  away  from  such  a  proposal. 
But  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the  real  reason 
was  that  he  saw  the  futility  of  the  military 
method  and  recognized  in  it  a  fundamental  con¬ 
tradiction  of  the  way  of  life  which  he  had  chosen 
as  his  own?  The  whole  of  his  teaching  bears 
out  this  conclusion. 

The  unity  of  mankind  in  a  great  world  broth¬ 
erhood,  with  a  common  Father;  the  inestima¬ 
ble  value  of  even  the  least  of  the  children  of  men ; 
the  duty  of  love,  even  to  one’s  enemies ;  the  avoid¬ 
ance  of  vengeance  and  retaliation  in  the  face  of 
any  provocation,  as  a  substitute  for  the  old  law 
of  an  eye  for  an  eye;  the  duty  of  unending  for¬ 
giveness,  even  as  often  as  seventy  times  seven; 
the  persuasive  power  of  sacrifice — can  these  be 
reconciled  with  the  method  of  war? 

With  his  great  intellectual  and  spiritual  vi¬ 
sion,  J esus  saw  the  futility  of  war,  and  not  only 
its  futility  because  of  the  impotence  of  the  Jews 

[177] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

against  the  military  power  of  Rome,  but  its  ut¬ 
ter  incompatibility  with  his  own  way  of  life. 
There  are  many  indications  in  the  Gospel  that 
Jesus  foresaw  the  outcome  of  armed  resistance 
against  Rome :  “And  when  he  was  come  near,  he 
beheld  the  city,  and  wept  over  it,  Saying,  If 
thou  hadst  known,  even  thou,  at  least  in  this  thy 
day,  the  things  which  belong  unto  thy  peace: 
but  now  they  are  hid  from  thine  eyes.  For  the 
days  shall  come  upon  thee,  that  thine  enemies 
shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee,  and  compass  thee 
round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and  they 
shall  lay  thee  even  with  the  ground,  and  thy  chil¬ 
dren  within  thee ;  and  they  shall  not  leave  in  thee 
one  stone  upon  another;  because  thou  knewest 
not  the  time  of  thy  visitation.”1 

Were  the  wars  of  the  first  century  more  de¬ 
structive  or  less  destructive  of  the  values  which 
Jesus  cherished  most  highly  than  the  wars  of  the 
twentieth  century?  Is  modern  warfare  more  in 
accord  or  less  in  accord  than  ancient  warfare  with 
the  spirit  and  teaching  of  Jesus?  With  the  ex- 


1  Luke  19  :41-44. 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


periences  of  the  World  War  still  vividly  in  our 
minds,  we  need  have  no  hesitation  in  answering 
these  questions.  The  weapons  of  modern  war¬ 
fare — machine  guns,  long  range  artillery,  boiling 
oil,  poison  gas,  air  raids,  submarines,  starvation 
by  blockade,  propaganda  of  hate  and  falsehood 
— these  are  weapons  which  Jesus  could  not  use 
without  violating  the  deepest  principles  of  his 
life. 

“The  Great  War  through  which  we  have 
passed,”  says  Winston  S.  Churchill,  former 
First  Lord  of  the  British  Admiralty,  “differed 
from  all  ancient  wars  in  the  immense  power  of 
the  combatants  and  their  fearful  agencies  of  de¬ 
struction,  and  from  all  modern  wars  in  the  utter 
ruthlessness  with  which  it  was  fought.  All  the 
horrors  of  the  ages  were  brought  together,  and 
not  only  armies  but  whole  populations  were 
thrust  into  the  midst  of  them.  .  .  .  Every  out¬ 
rage  against  humanity  or  international  law  was 
repaid  by  reprisals  often  on  a  greater  scale  and 
of  longer  duration.  .  .  .  When  all  was  over, 
Torture  and  Cannibalism  were  the  only  two  ex¬ 
pedients  that  the  civilized,  scientific,  Christian 

[179] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


States  had  been  able  to  deny  themselves:  and 
these  were  of  doubtful  utility.”1 

If  the  methods  and  weapons  of  modern  war  do 
not  violate  Jesus’  way  of  life,  then  his  words  and 
deeds  have  no  meaning  and  we  are  left  without 
any  idea  as  to  what  he  taught  about  any  subject 
whatsoever.  Either  Jesus  was  unalterably  op¬ 
posed  to  the  method  of  war  or  we  have  no  means 
of  knowing  what  he  approved  or  condemned. 

Should  the  churches  regard  war  as  sin  and 
refuse  ever  to  bless  it  again?  If  by  sin  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  means  an  attitude  or  practice  which 
is  a  grave  violation  of  the  spirit  and  teaching  of 
Jesus  and,  therefore,  should  not  be  tolerated,  it 
would  seem  to  the  writer  that  no  other  consistent 
course  is  open  to  it  than  to  turn  away  from  all 
future  war  as  sin. 


ii 

There  is  a  second  reason  why  this  should  be 
done :  W ar  is  ineffective  as  a  means  of  furthering 
Christ's  Kingdom  and  is  self-defeating  in  its  very 
nature.  That  is  to  say,  not  only  is  war  a  violation 


a“The  World  Crisis,”  pp.  10,  11. 

[180] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


of  Jesus’  way  of  life,  it  is  a  method  which  cannot 
be  used  successfully  to  build  the  kind  of  a  world 
which  he  sought  to  establish.  This  is  certainly 
true  of  any  great  war  today,  no  matter  what  may 
have  been  the  case  with  small  wars  in  the  past. 

Christians  have  frequently  had  an  uneasy  con¬ 
science  about  war.  They  have  usually  justified 
it,  however,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the  lesser 
of  two  evils,  and  have  hoped  that  its  net  result 
would  be  good,  rather  than  evil.  Is  such  a  hope 
justifiable  in  this  day?  Consider  the  World 
War.  It  would  be  difficult  to  devise  higher  aims 
than  those  for  which  millions  died  in  this  war: 
the  protection  of  the  helpless,  the  destruction  of 
militarism,  the  ending  of  war  forever,  and  mak¬ 
ing  the  world  safe  for  democracy.  Not  only 
were  these  the  real  aims  of  the  multitudes,  half 
the  world  poured  out  blood  and  treasure  in  seek¬ 
ing  their  realization.  If  war  is  a  method  by 
means  of  which  these  holy  ends  may  be  achieved, 
surely  success  should  have  crowned  the  sacrificial 
efforts  of  these  millions.  But  did  it?  Did  the 
war  accomplish  these  things? 

The  evidence  leaves  absolutely  no  room  for 

[181] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


doubt.  Did  military  force  protect  the  helpless? 
The  answer  is  found  in  the  summary  given  in  a 
former  chapter:  13  million  dead  soldiers,  13  mil¬ 
lion  dead  civilians,  20  million  wounded,  9  million 
war  orphans,  5  million  war  widows,  10  million 
refugees,  untold  millions  doomed  to  hunger,  mal¬ 
nutrition  and  sweated  labor,  a  ruined  continent, 
shattered  morals,  blasted  faith,  wholesale  misery 
and  despair. 

Did  the  war  destroy  militarism  and  end  war 
forever?  It  crushed  Germany  in  a  military  and 
economic  way  more  completely  than  has  fallen 
to  the  lot  of  any  other  great  nation  in  many  cen¬ 
turies.  But  this  did  not  destroy  militarism.  The 
evidence  at  this  point  is  overwhelming.  In  the 
entire  history  of  mankind  there  have  never  been 
as  many  men  enrolled  in  peace-time  armies  as 
during  the  period  since  the  close  of  the  World 
War.  Moreover,  there  has  never  been  a  time 
when  more  reliance  was  placed  in  military  force 
or  when  more  threats  of  war  were  made  than 
during  this  same  period. 

Did  the  war  make  the  world  safe  for  democ¬ 
racy?  Indeed,  did  the  war  make  the  world  safe 

[182] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 

for  any  of  the  higher  values  of  life?  Here  also 
the  answer  is  complete  and  convincing.  "Recent 
events,”  says  Lord  Grey,  former  British  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  "have  shown  us  with  horrid 
clearness  Europe  sliding  surely,  though  it  may 
appear  slowly,  toward  the  abyss.  Do  we  realize 
how  far  down  the  slope  we  have  already  gone? 
How  does  liberty  stand  in  Europe  today? — that 
liberty  our  generation  was  brought  up  to  believe 
could  be  secured  only  by  popular  representative 
government?  Russia  is  as  far  from  it  as  ever  she 
was — not  even  an  elected  Duma.  Now  Italy  has 
practically  a  dictatorship.  So  has  Spain.  Ger¬ 
many  is  either  under  a  dictatorship  or  in  chaos.” 
It  has  been  a  long,  long  time  since  the  world  was 
as  unsafe  for  human  life,  democracy,  truth  or 
virtue  as  at  this  very  hour. 

Is  it  not  supreme  folly  to  say  that  a  great  war 
is  the  lesser  of  two  evils?  It  is  a  combination  of 
all  the  major  evils  of  contemporary  life.  There 
is  no  sin  of  man  that  is  not  intensified  by  war. 
Dr.  Homer  Folks  has  well  said:  "We  may  select 
from  all  these  other  enemies  of  human  life  their 
worst  features,  combine  them  into  one  quintes- 

[183] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

sence  of  horror,  intensify  this  to  the  wth  degree, 
scatter  it  continent-wide,  and  that  is  war.” 

hi 

There  is  a  third  reason  why  it  seems  to  the 
writer  that  the  churches  should  henceforth  re¬ 
nounce  all  war.  The  absolute  repudiation  of  war 
by  individuals ,  groups  and  corporate  bodies  is 
the  most  effective  way  of  compelling  govern¬ 
ments  to  abandon  the  war  system  and  to  discover 
more  adequate  means  of  securing  safety  and 
justice . 

There  have  always  been  two  primary  methods 
of  seeking  to  abolish  a  practice  or  an  institution 
which  has  come  to  be  recognized  as  evil  by  indi¬ 
viduals  and  groups.  An  excellent  illustration 
of  these  two  methods  is  found  in  the  case  of 
slavery.  There  were  slave-owners  who  recog¬ 
nized  that  the  institution  was  thoroughly  bad  and 
should  be  abolished,  but  who  saw  little  value  in 
freeing  their  own  slaves  until  other  owners  were 
prepared  to  do  likewise.  Some  of  these  men 
argued  that  they  could  be  more  effective  in  their 
efforts  to  abolish  slavery  if  they  did  not  alienate 

[184] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


themselves  from  their  fellow  slaveholders.  They 
maintained  that  it  was  more  effective  “to  work 
from  within.” 

The  other  method  was  that  of  the  abolitionists 
who  were  uncompromising  in  their  repudiation 
and  denunciation  of  the  whole  system  of  slavery. 
The  length  to  which  they  went  is  revealed  in 
these  memorable  words  of  William  Lloyd  Gar¬ 
rison:  “I  will  be  as  harsh  as  truth,  and  as  uncom¬ 
promising  as  justice.  On  this  subject,  I  do  not 
wish  to  think,  to  speak,  or  write,  with  moderation. 
No!  No!  Tell  a  man  whose  house  is  on  fire  to 
give  a  moderate  alarm;  tell  him  to  moderately 
rescue  his  wife  from  the  hands  of  the  ravisher; 
tell  the  mother  to  gradually  extricate  her  babe 
from  the  fire  into  which  it  has  fallen — but  urge 
me  not  to  use  moderation  in  a  cause  like  the 
present.  I  am  in  earnest — I  will  not  equivocate 
— I  will  not  excuse — I  will  not  retreat  a  single 
inch — and  I  will  be  heard.  The  apathy  of  the 
people  is  enough  to  make  every  statue  leap  from 
its  pedestal,  and  to  hasten  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.” 

In  the  struggle  for  the  overthrow  of  slavery 

[185] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

we  find  a  clear  illustration  of  the  two  methods  of 
social  reform,  (1)  working  from  within,  and  (2) 
working  from  without.  The  miter  believes  that 
there  is  a  place  for  both  methods .  In  his  opinion 
the  test  as  to  which  method  should  he  adopted  in 
a  given  situation  is  found  here:  Have  we  reached 
the  point  where  individuals  and  groups  are  cer¬ 
tain  that  the  given  practice  or  institution  is  be¬ 
yond  reform  and  one  that  should  be  completely 

/ 

abandoned?  If  so,  it  seems  clear  that  the  method 
of  the  abolitionists  is  more  effective  than  the 
method  of  the  slaveholder  who  says  that  the  in¬ 
stitution  is  bad  and  should  be  uprooted,  but  who 
refuses  to  free  his  own  slaves  until  there  is  a 
general  proclamation  of  independence  for  slaves. 

It  is  not  often  that  a  generation  is  confronted 
with  a  social  problem  where  the  issue  is  as  clear 
cut  as  in  the  case  of  slavery.  Social  practices  and 
institutions  are  not  usually  wholly  black  or  alto¬ 
gether  white.  Light  grays  and  dark  browns 
seem  to  predominate.  In  the  case  of  light  grays 
or  even  light  browns  the  method  of  working  from 
within  may  prove  to  be  more  effective  than  the 
method  of  outright  repudiation.  In  the  case  of 

[186] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


a  social  practice,  which  we  feel  certain  is  not  gray 
or  brown  but  black ,  it  would  seem  that  immediate 
repudiation  and  a  positive  refusal  to  sanction  it 
or  participate  in  it  is  not  only  the  most  consistent 
but  also  the  most  effective  method  to  adopt. 

In  the  life  of  Jesus  we  find  both  of  these 
methods  illustrated.  He  believed  in  working 
from  within  the  Jewish  Church.  He  came  not  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfill.  Professor  Samuel  Dickey 
reminds  us  that  “on  the  whole,  it  may  be  said  that 
Jesus  not  only  apparently  kept  the  law  Himself, 
but  commended  it  to  others  as  a  way  of  life.” 
Yet  he  did  not  have  the  slightest  hesitation  in 
breaking  with  the  Jewish  leaders  on  fundamental 
questions.  He  was  never  willing  to  condone  evil 
or  compromise  his  message  for  the  sake  of  living 
in  harmony  with  his  fellows.  He  refused  to  ad¬ 
just  his  conscience  to  the  traditions  and  preju¬ 
dices  of  those  about  him.  “It  was  said  to  them  of 
old  .  .  .  but  I  say  unto  you  .  .  .”  He  warned 
his  disciples  that  loyalty  to  his  way  of  life  might 
cause  a  break  with  their  families  and  friends. 
“He  who  loves  father  or  mother  more  than  me  is 
not  worthy  of  me.” 


[187] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

Much  of  the  weakness  of  the  churches  in  this 
generation  is  due  to  the  frequency  with  which 
they  compromise  with  major  social  evils.  “The 
greatest  blot  on  the  history  of  the  Church  in 
modern  times,”  says  Canon  Streeter,  “is  the  fact 
that,  with  the  glorious  exception  of  the  campaign 
to  abolish  slavery,  the  leaders  in  the  social,  polit¬ 
ical  and  humanitarian  reforms  of  the  last  century 
and  a  half  in  Europe  have  rarely  been  professing 
Christians;  while  the  authorized  representatives 
of  organized  Christianity  have,  as  often  as  not, 
been  on  the  wrong  side.”  So  far  as  great  sections 
of  the  Church  in  America  are  concerned  we  can¬ 
not  even  make  an  exception  in  the  case  of  slavery, 
although  we  do  find  other  exceptions. 

Can  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  imperative 
need  for  vision  and  courage  on  the  part  of  the 
churches — vision  to  discriminate  between  gray 
and  brown  and  black,  and  courage  to  repudiate 
immediately  and  utterly  those  attitudes  and  prac¬ 
tices  which  are  unmistakably  black  ? 

In  the  minds  of  an  increasing  number  of  men 
and  women  there  is  a  conviction  that  we  have 
now  reached  this  place  with  regard  to  war.  To 

[188] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 
many  of  us  war  is  not  gray  or  even  brown;  it  is 
dead  black — it  is  a  way  of  dealing  with  disputes 
between  nations  which  is  an  absolute  violation  of 
the  teaching  and  example  of  Jesus  and  is  an  insti¬ 
tution  which  must  be  totally  abolished  if  civiliza¬ 
tion  is  to  endure. 

As  in  the  case  of  slavery,  so  with  war  today, 
two  methods  are  open  to  those  persons  who  re¬ 
gard  it  as  black:  they  may  think  it  more  effective 
to  work  for  the  ending  of  war  without  alienating 
themselves  from  their  fellows  who  believe  in  war 
as  a  means  of  defending  home,  liberty  and  the 
higher  values.  There  is  certainly  much  to  be  said 
for  this  point  of  view. 

The  other  method  is  that  of  outright  and  com¬ 
plete  renunciation  of  the  whole  war  system  and 
an  absolute  refusal  to  engage  in  it  or  to  sanction 
it  under  any  circumstances.  The  persons  who 
take  this  position  point  out  that  the  weapons 
of  war  instead  of  being  effective  means  of  pro¬ 
tecting  the  helpless  and  of  promoting  the  higher 
values  of  life  are  the  greatest  of  all  menaces  to 
civilization.  Can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the 
world  would  be  a  vastly  safer  place  in  which  to 

[189] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

live  if  there  were  no  armies  or  navies?  Would 
not  the  security  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth  be 
more  adequately  safeguarded  if  all  armies  were 
disbanded  and  all  navies  were  sunk  or  converted 
into  merchant  ships,  provisions  for  protection 
from  bandits  and  highwaymen  being  assured  by 
whatever  extension  of  the  police  force  is  required  ? 

The  writer  must  be  included  in  that  group  of 
people  who  believe  that  war  is  absolutely  black, 
that  is  to  say,  it  is  essentially  and  inherently  un¬ 
christian,  is  ineffective  as  a  means  of  furthering 
Christ’s  Kingdom,  is  self-defeating  in  its  very 
nature,  and  should,  therefore,  he  completely 
abolished  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  He  is 
convinced  that  the  most  effective  way  to  accom¬ 
plish  this  end  is  for  individuals,  groups  and 
churches  to  renounce  the  whole  war  system  and 
seek  immediately  and  vigorously  to  induce  gov¬ 
ernments  to  adopt  this  policy. 

To  many  persons  this  will  seem  to  be  a  highly 
dangerous  procedure.  It  may  prove  to  be  so. 
It  is  fair  to  ask,  however,  do  armies  and  navies 
guarantee  security  and  freedom  from  all  danger  ? 
The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  there  is  no  such 


[190] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


thing  as  absolute  freedom  from  danger  in  the 
kind  of  world  in  which  we  are  living.  On  grounds 
of  relative  danger  the  writer  is  convinced  that 
armies  and  navies  are  a  greater  menace  than  they 
are  a  means  of  protection.  One  thing  seems 
certain,  if  military  force  is  permanently  our  most 
effective  means  of  protection  then  humanity  is 
doomed  and  all  efforts  to  build  an  enduring  social 
order  will  come  to  nought. 

If  we  assume  for  the  moment  that  the  churches 
should  renounce  all  war,  how  shall  their  leaders 
go  about  the  task  of  getting  this  idea  accepted 
by  the  rank  and  file  of  church  members  ?  Let  us 
be  under  no  illusions  as  to  the  enormous  diffi¬ 
culties  in  the  way.  The  war  system  is  so  deeply 
embedded  in  our  social  structure,  peoples  have 
so  long  depended  upon  war  for  protection  and 
justice,  and  the  whole  question  is  so  closely  re¬ 
lated  to  current  conceptions  of  patriotism  and 
loyalty  to  the  state,  that  the  task  of  securing 
popular  approval  for  this  proposal  is  perhaps 
the  most  difficult  social  reform  which  the  churches 
have  ever  undertaken.  The  task  of  overthrow¬ 
ing  human  slavery  or  the  liquor  traffic  presented 

[191] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

fewer  difficulties  than  does  this  effort  to  renounce 
all  war. 

IV 

There  are  four  methods  which  may  be  used 
simultaneously  to  further  the  acceptance  of  this 
idea:  Individual  action,  group  action,  corporate 
action,  religious  education. 

(1)  Individual  Action .  All  social  reforms 
have  started  with  a  few  individuals.  In  the  be¬ 
ginning,  a  few  men  and  women  think,  act  and 
agitate.  There  has  been  no  other  way  of  abolish¬ 
ing  giant  social  evils.  Individual  action  alone  is 
inadequate,  but  it  is  the  only  foundation  of  social 
progress.  So  it  was  with  the  abolition  of  slavery 
and  the  outlawry  of  the  liquor  traffic.  So  must 
it  be  with  the  outlawry  and  abolition  of  war. 

Therefore,  every  person  who  desires  the  over¬ 
throw  of  war  should  begin  with  himself.  What 
is  my  attitude  toward  war?  Am  I  willing  to 
renounce  all  war  and  refuse  to  sanction  or  par¬ 
ticipate  in  any  future  war?  Should  I  make  a 
public  declaration  of  such  a  decision?  In  what 
ways  may  I  arouse  my  friends  and  persuade  them 

[192] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


to  take  similar  action?  These  are  questions  for 
personal  consideration. 

There  are  very  great  advantages  in  making  a 
personal  decision  now.  If  we  wait  until  the  out¬ 
break  of  war  is  imminent,  clear  thinking  and  wise 
action  become  much  more  difficult,  if  not  impos¬ 
sible,  in  the  face  of  false  or  exaggerated  propa¬ 
ganda  and  the  arousing  of  fear  and  the  baser 
passions.  All  the  facts  necessary  for  the  form¬ 
ing  of  an  intelligent  judgment  are  now  available. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  deciding  whether  our  own 
government  is  in  the  right  in  a  given  dispute  and 
justified  in  claiming  redress  from  another  nation. 
That  is  not  the  problem.  The  question  is  this: 
Is  war  a  method  by  means  of  which  a  justifiable 
end  may  be  achieved?  It  is  not  a  matter  of  mak¬ 
ing  an  abstract  decision  in  the  dark,  without 
knowledge  of  a  given  set  of  circumstances.  It  is 
simply  a  decision  concerning  a  concrete  method 
of  dealing  with  injustice ,  concerning  which 
method  we  now  possess  full  information.  If  we 
are  convinced  that  this  method  is  un-Christian, 
ineffective  and  tragically  wasteful,  let  us  say  so 
now  and  make  our  plans  accordingly. 


[193] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


This  is  exactly  what  a  rapidly  increasing  num¬ 
ber  of  men  and  women  are  doing.  In  every  com¬ 
munity  are  to  be  found  persons  whose  decisions 
in  this  regard  are  known  and  who  are  seeking  in 
various  ways  to  persuade  their  friends  to  make 
similar  declarations.  One  of  the  most  prominent 
of  these  individuals  was  the  deeply  lamented 
William  Austin  Smith,  the  brilliant  editor  of 
the  Churchman.  In  a  notable  address  at  Lake 
Mohonk  only  a  few  months  before  his  death,  Dr. 
Smith  expressed  his  convictions  concerning  war 
in  the  following  vigorous  words : 

“If  would  be  as  idle  a  moral  pastime  to  repu¬ 
diate  past  wars  as  it  would  be  to  repudiate  our 
polygamous  forefathers.  Moral  systems,  we  all 
know,  are  not  handed  down  from  Heaven  in  com¬ 
plete  parcels.  They  grow.  I  am  not  contending 
that  war  was  a  sin  five,  ten  or  a  hundred  years 
ago.  I  am  contending  that  henceforth  war  is  a 
sin.  It  has  now  been  fully  revealed  to  us  what 
war  is  made  of,  what  are  its  unclean  causes,  its 
substance  and  its  results.  I  maintain  that  if  God 
has  made  anything  clear  to  the  mind  of  Christen¬ 
dom,  He  has  revealed  to  us  the  sinfulness  of  war. 


[194] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 

If  the  Christian  Church  blesses  another  war,  its 
blessing  and  its  curse  will  have  no  further  author¬ 
ity  and  prestige  for  our  civilization.  There  are 
tremendous  risks  and  some  baffling  perplexities 
in  such  an  attitude,  but  the  perplexities  are  not 
greater,  nor  the  risks  more  perilous,  than  those 
incurred  if  the  Church  should  undertake  to  cham¬ 
pion  another  world-wide  civil  war.  ...  We 
shall  never  abolish  war  by  gradual  improvement 
and  the  slow  processes  of  redemption  of  human 
nature.  Dueling  was  not  abolished  by  convert¬ 
ing  duelists.  Men  still  insult  and  impugn  one 
another’s  honor,  but  they  don’t  fight  duels.  Duel¬ 
ing  was  abolished  by  a  fiat  of  the  Christian  con¬ 
science.  If  we  wait  to  abolish  war  till  all  men 
love  one  another,  we  shall  wait  until  Judgment 
Day.  Some  generation  has  got  to  stop  the  thing 
short.  Why  not  ours?”1 

In  England  many  prominent  leaders  of  the 
churches  are  going  on  record  as  being  irrevocably 
opposed  to  all  war.  One  of  the  most  influential 


1  Copies  of  this  remarkable  address  may  be  secured  for  five  cents 
each  from  Kirby  Page,  311  Division  Avenue,  Hasbrouck  Heights, 
New  Jersey. 


[195] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

of  these  men  is  F.  W.  Norwood,  pastor  of  the 
famous  City  Temple,  in  London.  In  an  impor¬ 
tant  address  before  the  last  Annual  Assembly  of 
the  Congregational  Union,  Dr.  Norwood  went 
on  record  in  the  following  words:  “Nobody 
knows  when  the  day  may  come  when  his  own 
faith  and  attitude  will  be  put  to  a  crucial  test.  I 
know  for  myself  where  I  shall  be  if  that  test 
comes.  If  I  fail,  you  will  know  I  am  a  moral 
coward.  I  know  exactly  where  I  am,  as  a  Chris¬ 
tian  minister,  with  regard  to  war.  Never  under 
any  circumstances  can  the  slaughtering  of  men 
be  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  Christ.  ...  I  hold 
that  it  ought  to  be  clear  enough  by  this  time  that, 
officially  at  any  rate,  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
dare  not  and  ought  not  to  give  her  sanction  to 
that  kind  of  struggle  any  more.  ...  If  war 
came  again,  some  of  your  people  would  go  and 
fight,  and  some  would  refuse.  I  know  what  I 
should  do.  I  should  say,  You  must  do  what  you 
think  is  right.  I  respect  your  convictions,  but  as 
a  public  servant  of  the  Nazarene,  I  dare  not  give 
His  name  to  that  kind  of  bitter  struggle  which 

[196] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


has  taken  place  again  and  again  in  the  world, 
which  grows  more  and  more  horrid  every  time, 
and  more  and  more  ineffective.  I  stand  by  the 
eternal  gospel  of  the  Nazarene.” 

v 

(2)  Group  Action,  Individual  efforts  should 
be  supplemented  by  group  action.  Group  decla¬ 
rations  concerning  war  may  have  a  powerful 
effect  upon  public  opinion.  An  example  of  the 
kind  of  thing  that  may  be  done  in  this  regard  is 
found  in  the  declaration  issued  some  months  ago 
by  155  leading  ministers  and  laymen  of  the  vari¬ 
ous  churches. 

The  following  paragraphs  are  taken  from  this 
declaration:  “There  are  some  among  us,  of  whom 
the  signatories  of  this  appeal  form  a  small  group, 
who  regard  war  as  the  most  ruinous  organized  sin 
which  mankind  now  faces ;  who  are  sure  that  the 
war  system  and  the  Christian  Gospel  cannot  per¬ 
manently  abide  together  on  the  same  earth ;  who 
see  clearly  that  the  spirit  of  war  and  the  spirit  of 
the  Gospel  are  antithetical,  the  one  representing 

[197] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


what  the  other  hates  and  would  destroy ;  who  rec¬ 
ognize  that  war  is  futile  as  a  means  of  furthering 
Christ’s  Kingdom,  even  where  the  end  sought  is 
righteous  and  where  the  spirit  of  the  combatants 
is  sacrificial. 

“Our  position  in  this  appeal  does  not  involve 
theoretical  pacifism;  we  are  not  concerned  to 
deny  the  necessity  of  using  force,  massed  force, 
it  may  be  in  an  emergency,  nor  of  a  moderate 
military  organization  for  defensive  purposes. 
But  the  war  system  is  not  an  appeal  to  force  in 
an  emergency — it  is  a  long  drawn  out  and  de¬ 
liberate  preparation  for  the  use  of  every  known 
means  of  cruel  and  collective  destruction.  .  .  . 
We  are  certain  that  unless  the  Church  of  Christ 
takes  now  a  clear  and  consistent  stand  on  this 
matter  of  life  and  death  to  our  civilization  and 
to  the  world,  she  will  merit  the  contempt  of  men 
and  the  judgment  of  God.  We,  therefore,  urge 
all  the  people  of  the  churches,  and  all  ministers 
in  particular,  to  an  outspoken  declaration  that 
the  war  system  and  the  Gospel  of  Christ  are 
diametrically  and  irreconcilably  opposed.  We 
urge  that  without  delay  this  crisis  of  decision 

[198] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


between  war  and  Christ  be  unmistakably  recog¬ 
nized  and  stated.”1 

This  statement  is  a  very  powerful  indictment 
of  war,  but  it  falls  short  of  renouncing  all  war 
by  the  inclusion  of  the  following  phrase:  “Nor  of 
a  moderate  military  organization  for  defensive 
purposes.”  This  phrase  leaves  the  door  wide 
open  for  supporting  almost  any  future  war,  since 
all  wars  are  now  regarded  as  defensive.  More¬ 
over,  all  military  preparations  are  moderate,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  respective  nations.  Much  of 
the  effect  of  this  declaration  was,  therefore,  nulli¬ 
fied  by  the  inclusion  of  these  words.  It  seems  to 
the  writer  that  if  this  phrase  had  been  omitted, 
and  some  such  sentence  as  the  following  added — 
“We  desire  to  record  our  strong  conviction  that 
henceforth  all  war  is  sin,  and,  therefore,  we  can¬ 
not  sanction  or  participate  in  any  future  war” — 
the  influence  of  this  declaration  on  public  opinion 
would  have  been  increased  a  thousandfold.  Many 
such  declarations  as  this  will  be  needed  before 
war  is  finally  outlawed. 

1  Copies  of  this  declaration,  with  a  full  list  of  signatories,  may 
be  secured  from  the  World  Alliance  for  Promoting  Friendship 
Through  the  Churches,  70  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

[199] 


WAR :  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


VI 

(3)  Individual  and  group  action  need  to  be 
supplemented  by  the  corporate  action  of  the  vari¬ 
ous  churches.  The  tactics  of  the  campaign  of 
the  churches  against  the  liquor  traffic  need  to  be 
repeated  in  the  campaign  against  war.  Long 
before  official  pronouncements  against  the  saloon 
were  made  by  the  churches,  individuals  and 
groups  were  making  constant  declarations  and 
passing  innumerable  resolutions.  Finally,  the 
churches  began  to  issue  official  pronouncements. 
Success  in  the  campaign  against  war  cannot  come 
until  various  conferences,  conventions  and  assem¬ 
blies  of  the  churches — local,  district,  state,  na¬ 
tional  and  international — go  on  record  officially 
as  renouncing  all  future  war. 

(4)  Another  important  step  in  the  direction 
of  the  permanent  abolition  of  war  is  an  adequate 
program  of  religious  education.  War  will  not 
finally  be  regarded  as  sin  until  this  idea  has  been 
implanted  in  the  minds  of  children  and  young 
people.  It  is  all-important,  therefore,  that  war 

[200] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


and  international  questions  be  given  adequate 
treatment  in  the  literature  and  program  of  relig¬ 
ious  education  of  the  various  churches. 

It  should  he  fully  recognized ,  of  course ,  that 
war  will  never  he  abolished  merely  hy  regarding 
it  as  sin.  Constructive  measures  looking  toward 
the  removal  of  the  causes  of  war  and  the  erection 
of  international  processes  for  the  settling  of  dis¬ 
putes  between  nations  must  be  promoted  simul¬ 
taneously.  The  churches  have,  therefore,  a 
special  responsibility  for  supporting  such  con¬ 
structive  proposals  as  were  enumerated  in  a 
former  chapter:  the  abandonment  of  economic 
imperialism,  disarmament,  abolition  of  secret 
diplomacy,  the  outlawry  of  war,  the  World 
Court,  the  League  of  Nations,  and  the  creation 
of  an  international  mind. 

With  regard  to  this  last  point  especially,  the 
churches  have  a  supreme  obligation.  They  are 
founded  upon  the  conception  of  a  universal 
Father,  a  universal  Saviour,  a  universal  brother¬ 
hood,  and  are  missionary  in  their  very  nature. 
They  are  in  a  position  to  wield  enormous  influ¬ 
ence  in  creating  that  international  mind,  upon 

[201] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


which  all  constructive  proposals  for  the  abolition 
of  war  finally  rest. 

VII 

The  one  barrier  to  world  peace  that  towers  far 
above  all  others  is  fear.  Fear  is  the  foul  spirit 
of  this  age  which  must  be  cast  out  if  the  nations 
are  to  escape  suicide.  It  is  fear  of  what  will 
happen  to  all  the  higher  values  of  life  if  military 
force  is  renounced  that  causes  the  churches  to 
hesitate  about  turning  resolutely  away  from  all 
war.  In  the  last  analysis  this  fear  is  due  to  a 
lack  of  confidence  in  moral  and  spiritual  forces. 
The  churches  have  been  deeply  smitten  with  the 
pagan  philosophy  of  physical  force  and  have  be¬ 
come  timorous  as  to  the  power  of  love  in  a  world 
like  this. 

The  churches  of  America  are  in  a  unique  posi¬ 
tion  at  this  hour.  Blessed  as  they  are  with  an 
extraordinarily  favorable  geographical  location, 
far  removed  from  possible  enemies,  and  with  no 
actual  enemies  far  or  near;  with  enormous  wealth 
at  their  disposal;  with  vast  latent  resources  of 

[202] 


THE  CHURCHES  AND  WAR 


moral  and  spiritual  dynamic ;  it  is  unquestionable 
that  they  alone  are  so  situated  and  have  sufficient 
power  to  break  the  thraldom  of  fear  which  is 
now  throttling  the  very  jugular  vein  of  civiliza¬ 
tion.  At  such  an  hour,  with  such  an  opportunity 
and  responsibility,  can  it  be  that  it  is  to  these 
churches  that  the  reproach  of  the  Master  comes 
ringing  down  the  ages :  O  ye  of  little  faith  ? 

With  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  the 
churches  of  America  could  lead  in  a  movement 
for  the  overthrow  of  the  mountains  of  fear  which 
rest  so  heavily  on  the  peace  of  the  world.  The 
challenge  is  clear :  Fear  not.  Only  believe. 

Sheer  audacity  is  required  at  this  hour.  Half¬ 
way  measures  are  inadequate  to  deal  with  the 
present  danger  in  Europe  and  the  Near  East. 
The  churches  of  America  have  it  within  their 
power  to  kindle  the  imagination  and  enthusiasm 
of  the  war-sick  masses  in  these  lands  and  to  aid 
them  in  breaking  the  vicious  circle  of  fear  and 
armaments,  greater  armaments  and  more  intense 
fear. 

The  present  situation  demands  extreme  mea¬ 
sures.  Let  the  churches  of  America  say  to  their 

[203] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

own  government  and  to  the  peoples  of  the  earth : 
We  feel  so  certain  that  war  is  now  unchristian, 
futile  and  suicidal  that  we  renounce  completely 
the  whole  war  system.  We  will  never  again  sanc¬ 
tion  or  participate  in  any  war.  We  will  not  allow 
our  pulpits  and  classrooms  to  be  used  as  recruit¬ 
ing  stations.  We  will  not  again  give  our  financial 
or  moral  support  to  any  war.  We  will  seek 
security  and  justice  in  other  ways.  We  believe 
in  the  latent  goodness  of  all  peoples  everywhere, 
in  love  and  spiritual  processes  as  mightier  than 
military  weapons,  and  that  the  most  certain 
means  of  overcoming  evil  is  found  in  the  spirit 
of  the  cross.  We  pledge  our  time,  our  energy, 
our  money,  and,  if  necessary,  our  very  lives,  in 
the  crusade  to  abolish  war  and  to  erect  effective 
international  processes  of  justice  and  goodwill. 

Does  not  the  truest  patriotism,  as  well  as  the 
deepest  loyalty  to  Jesus’  way  of  life,  demand  that 
individuals  and  churches  should  immediately  and 
utterly  repudiate  the  whole  war  system? 


[204] 


Appendix 


THE  FELLOWSHIP  OF 
RECONCILIATION 

“God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 
Himself.” 

“He  gave  unto  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation.” 

The  Fellowship  of  Reconciliation  is  an  inter¬ 
national  group  of  persons  who  are  seeking  un¬ 
compromising  practice  of  Christ’s  principles  in 
the  present  world. 

Its  beginning  took  place  a  few  months  after 
the  outbreak  of  the  World  War  and  was  the 
outgrowth  of  a  deep  dissatisfaction  with  the  con¬ 
fused  utterances  of  the  Churches  concerning  that 
war  and  war  generally.  To  the  founders  of  the 
Fellowship,  the  contradiction  between  Christ’s 
commandments  and  the  commands  of  war,  even 
more  between  Christ’s  spirit  and  the  spirit  of 
war,  seemed  so  flagrant  as  to  admit  of  no  Chris- 

[205] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


tian  sanction  for  war  of  any  kind.  Meeting  in 
Great  Britain  at  the  end  of  1914  these  men  and 
women  from  different  classes  of  the  community, 
from  different  Churches  and  from  no  Church, 
found  themselves  united  in  the  conviction  that 
their  duty  in  the  crisis  was  to  refuse  every  assist¬ 
ance  to  war  and  to  bear  unswerving  witness  to 
Christ’s  way  of  redemptive  love. 

The  essential  faith  supporting  this  conviction 
was  belief  that  love  as  revealed  in  Jesus  is  the 
basis  of  a  true  human  society,  the  inviolable  law 
of  personal  relationships,  the  effective  power  for 
overcoming  evil  and  the  creative  life  by  which 
the  world  can  be  transformed.  It  was  felt  that 
the  full  implications  of  this  love,  in  regard  not 
only  to  war  but  to  industry,  class  conflict,  racial 
antagonism  and  all  other  relationships,  would 
call  for  such  fundamental  changes  in  the  spirit 
of  men  and  structure  of  society  as  to  demand  new 
exploration  of  methods  and  sacrificial  consecra¬ 
tion  of  life.  For  this  adventure  the  Fellowship 
was  formed  and  continues  to  exist  today. 

There  are  branches  now  in  nineteen  countries 
and  a  membership  extraordinarily  diverse.  There 

[206] 


APPENDIX 


is  no  one  program  or  theory  of  social  reconstruc¬ 
tion  to  which  all  are  committed,  but  members  try 
to  work  out  personally  and  in  their  own  way  the 
central  convictions  which  are  held.  These  rest 
on  no  literalistic  dogma  of  non-resistance  but  on 
a  profound  evidence  of  life. 

The  Fellowship  invites  all  interested  persons 
to  read  its  literature,  talk  with  its  members  and 
consider  joining  its  quest.  The  statement  of 
principles  and  other  descriptive  pamphlets  will 
be  sent  gratis  to  inquirers.  Communications  in 
the  United  States  may  be  addressed  to  The  Sec¬ 
retary,  Fellowship  of  Reconciliation,  396  Broad¬ 
way,  New  York.  The  International  office  is  at 
17  Red  Lion  Square,  London,  W.C.  1. 


[207] 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Lyman 

175 

Aeroplanes 

166 

Africa  . 

22  ff. 

Alliances 

•  • 

43  ff. 

Allied  Gains  . 

77 

Armament  Expenditures 

29,  30,  31,  32, 

Armaments 

47,  111,  189 

Asia 

25 

Asquith,  Henry  Herbert 

20,  52,  55 

Austria 

43 

B 

Baker,  Ray  Stannard 

60 

Bankers  Trust  Co.  . 

28 

Bass,  John  Foster  . 

60 

Bau,  M.  J. 

26 

Bausman,  Frederick 

38 

Beard,  Chas.  A. 

44,  51,  57,  127 

Belgian  Minister 

38,  40 

Belgium 

110 

Benckendorff,  Ambassador 

38 

Bethmann-Hollweg,  Chancellor 

68 

Blockade 

•  » 

107 

Bogart,  E.  L. 

o 

82,  86,  90,  92 

Borah,  Senator 

•  • 

138 

Brothels 

•  • 

112 

Bryce,  Viscount 

0  • 

65 

[209] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 

c 


Calvo  .... 

• 

128 

Campbell-Bannerman,  Sir  Henry 

53 

Casualties 

84,  85,  88,  115 

Cecil,  Hugh 

52 

Central  America 

123 

Central  Conference  of  American 

Rabbis 

118 

Chester  Concession 

125 

China  .... 

26 

Churches 

• 

107,  108,  162  ff. 

Churchill,  W.  S. 

179 

Civilization 

115,  160,  183 

Continental  Congress 

152 

Costs  of  the  War 

91,92 

Creel,  George 

99 

Currencies 

96 

D 

Debts  .... 

124 

Delaisi,  Francis 

119 

Democracy 

182 

Dewey,  John 

139 

Dickey,  Samuel 

187 

Dickinson,  G.  Lowes 

58,  73,  74 

Disarmament 

130  ff. 

Drago,  Luis  . 

129 

E 

Earle,  E.  M.  . 

• 

126 

Economic  Imperialism 

• 

21  ff.,  112,  118  ff 

Effects  Upon  the  Future 

• 

109  ff. 

Enoch,  Arthur  Guy 

• 

29,  133 

[210] 


INDEX 

F 


*  <*LL1A11C  •  • 

Fay,  S.  B. 

VO 

66,71 

Fear 

62  ff.,  111,202 

Federal  Council  of  Church* 

es 

118 

Fisher,  Irving 

145 

Fisher,  Lord 

32,  33,  34,  64 

Fisk,  Harvey  E. 

28 

Folks,  Homer 

86,87,  90,  183 

Force 

163 

Fourteen  Points 

108 

France 

20,  26,37,41,44,  50, 

59,  110,  111,  133 

Freedom  of  Speech 

103 

French,  Lord 

45,  52 

Friction  Points 

113 

Fuller,  J.  F.  C. 

36,  164,  166 

G 

Garrison,  Wm.  Lloyd 

• 

• 

185 

Gas 

• 

• 

165,  166 

George,  Lloyd 

• 

• 

16,  17,  40,63,  73,  113 

Gerard,  Ambassador 

• 

• 

66 

Germany  . 

• 

1  • 

16,26,  43,  77,  94,  96, 

114 

Great  Britain 

m 

21,26,  35,44,55,59, 

120,  133 

Grey,  Sir  Edward 

• 

• 

40,  55,  56,  183 

H 

Hague  Tribunal 

140 

Haldane,  Lord 

39,  66 

Hatred 

109 

Hoover,  Herbert 

93 

Hayes,  Carlton  J.  . 

27 

[211] 


WAR:  ITS 

CAUSES 

i 

AND  CURE 

International  Labor  Organization 

147 

International  Mind  . 

•  • 

157  ff. 

Irwin,  Will 

•  • 

110,  164,  165 

Italy 

•  9 

J 

44,  59 

Japan 

•  • 

27,  59,  133 

Jesus 

•  • 

169  ff. 

Jews 

•  • 

K 

170 

Kautsky,  Karl 

•  • 

67 

Kellor,  Frances 

•  • 

142, 150 

Kerr,  Philip  . 

•  • 

70,  152 

Keynes,  J.  M. 

•  • 

L 

77,78 

Latin  America 

128 

League  of  Nations 

143  ff. 

Lee,  Arthur 

36 

Lefebure,  Victor 

164 

Levison,  S.  0. 

138 

Lippman,  Walter 

139 

Loreburn,  Lord 

54 

Losses  in  Life 

82  ff. 

Lusitania 

M 

89,  107 

Madison,  James 

152 

Material  Losses 

90  ff. 

McMaster,  J.  B. 

153,  155,  156 

Militarism 

27  ff.,  182 

Military  Time-table 

70 

[212] 


INDEX 


Missions 

Monroe  Doctrine 
Montenegro 
Moral  Losses 
Morel,  E.  D. 


106 

123 

59 

97  ff. 

36,41,42,43,  47,  50 
135 


N 


Nation,  The  .... 

National  Catholic  Welfare  Council 

National  Sovereignty 

Navies,  Size  of 

Neilson,  Francis 

Nicholas,  Czar 

Nitti,  Francesco 

Northcliffe,  Lord 
Norwood,  F.  W. 


Oil 

Orphans 

Outlawry  of  War 


O 


P 


Pan-American  Conference 
Poincare,  Raymond 
Police 
Polk,  F.  L. 

Propaganda 

Protection 


126 

118 

152 

49 

40 

71 

17,  75,  80,  105,  109, 
112 
98 
195 


119 

86 

136  ff. 


128 

20,  41,  51 

163 

119 

17,97,  107 
181 


Refugees 
Religious  Losses 


87 

105  ff. 


[213] 


WAR:  ITS  CAUSES  AND  CURE 


Repington,  Chas. 

45,  53,65 

Revolution 

114 

Roberts,  Lord 

35 

Roman  Empire 

169 

Roosevelt,  Theodore 

123 

Root,  Elihu 

140 

Roumania 

59 

Russia 

S 

26,  42,  44,  50,55 
59,  72 

Scott,  E.  C.  . 

174 

Secret  Diplomacy 

48  ff.,  56,  134  ff. 

Serbia 

59 

Sexual  Immorality  . 

103 

Simkhovitch,  V.  G. 

169,  171,  172 

Sims,  Rear  Admiral 

101 

Slavery 

184 

Smith,  Wm.  Austin 

194 

South  America 

124 

Streeter,  Canon 

1  • 

188 

Stuart,  Sir  Campbell 

98 

Sukhomlinov,  General 

72 

Sweetser,  Arthur 

145 

T 


Thomas,  Norman 
Treaty  of  Versailles 
Tuohy,  F. 

U 

Unemployment 
United  States 


124 

108,  112 
102 


95 

121,  127,  131 


[214] 


INDEX 


Venezuela 

V 

•  • 

122 

Viallate,  Achille 

•  • 

21,  122,  128 

Wehberg,  Hans 

w 

133 

Widows 

87 

William,  Kaiser 

68,71 

Willoughby,  W.  W. 

26 

Wilson,  Woodrow 

15,  99,  105 

World  Alliance 

199 

World  Court  . 

139  ff. 

[215] 


Date  Due 


0  18  v' 

1 

0  2  5  ’37 

Ap  5 

3 

Mime 

±'2  1 

a 

N  19  ’4 

g 

?  9 

.• 

Fn[  4 ’53 

-  . . 

jgUgg;' 

r  % 

•fjrwsiW 

m 

"«■» 

*K 

iufh1 

■Em§ 

WUn  1 

f) 

U/\  .r  ID 


War;  its  causes,  consequences  and  cure, 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1  1012  00062  9545 


